UC-NRLF 


$B    S7    420 


THE  DEPENDENCE  OF 

PA  IT  I  OF  CYNEWULPS  CHRIST 

Upon 

THE  ANTIPHONARY 


BY 


EDWARD  tBURGERT,  O.  S.  B. 


A  DISSERTATION 

Siihmitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Letters  of  the  Catholic  University 

of  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


Washington,  D.  C. 
1931 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/dependenceofpartOOburgrich 


THE  DEPENDENCE  OF 

PART  I  OF  CYNEWULFS  CHRIST 

Upon 

THE  ANTIPHONARY 


BY 

EDWARD  iBURGERT,  O.  S.  B. 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Letters  of  the  Catholic  University 

of  America  in  Partial  fulfillment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


Washington,  D.  C. 
1921 


Copyriffht.  1921 
by 
;•  ;  '..'    EDWARD  BURGERT 


•     •••.••     •  by 


•  !•••*     ••••       • 


BKCHA^f€ig: 


J.  D.  Milan*  &  Sons.  Printers 
Wa»hington,  D.  C. 


FOREWORD  /y)/?//^ 

The  following  dissertation,  being  restricted  to  a  study  of  Part 
I  of  Cynewulf's  Christ,  will  carry  an  especial  interest  only  for 
students  of  Old  English  Literature.  Yet  the  writer  hopes  that, 
in  the  main  general  content,  its  perusal  may  interest  liturgiolo- 
gists  and  lovers  of  our  early  native  Christian  Poetry  to  the 
extent,  at  least,  of  according  a  welcome  to  the  first  contribution 
of  its  kind  from  a  student  of  Cynewulf  so  near  to  him  in  both 
Church  tradition  and  station  in  life.  If  it  were  necessary  to 
offer  an  explanation  or  even  am  apology  for  this  hazardous 
venture  by  a  beginner  in  Old  English,  and  for  his  selection  of 
a  subject  considered  by  many,  even  in  our  day  of  ripe  scholarship, 
as  unpractical  and  effete,  the  consideration  indicated  above  would 
be  amply  sufficient.  "* 

Though  the  writer  is  deeply  conscious  of  the  imperfections  in 
his  work,  he  was  determined  to  carry  it  out  to  the  best  of  his 
ability,  especially  after  he  had  received  the  encouragement  of 
Professor  Albert  S.  Cook,  whose  position  as  the  foremost 
authority  on  The  Christ  of  Cynewulf  in  this  country,  if  not  in 
the  world,  is  universally  accepted.  Professor  Cook  wrote  to 
him,  in  a  letter  of  December  4,  1920,  "I  have  long  wondered  that 
your  Church,  and  especially  your  Order,  should  not  have  bestowed 
more  attention  upon  Old  English  Literature.  It  is  a  hopeful  sign 
that  you  are  going  into  this  matter  so  carefully." 

Indeed,  this  field  of  our  glorious  Literature  has  been  too  long 
neglected  by  those  whose  heritage  it  principally  is.  Wherefore 
the  writer  entertains  the  hope  that  his  modest  beginning  may 
break  the  way  to  a  more  intense  study  and  a  deeper  appreciation 
of  the  Catholic  Literature  in  Old  England  on  the  part  of  Catholic 
students  in  the  English  speaking  world. 

The  indebtedness  of  the  writer  for  the  help  and  encouragement 
received  on  all  sides  is  manifold.  He  wishes  to  express  his 
gratitude  to  Dr.  Karl  Young  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  to 
Rev.  F.  G.  Holweck,  editor  of  the  Pastoral-Blatt  of  St.  Louis, 
and  to  Msgr.  Henry,  Litt.  D.,  of  the  Catholic  University  of 
America,  for  various  services  rendered ;  but  chiefly  to  Dr.  Francis 
J.  Hemelt,  who  not  only  gave  him  the  inspiration  for  his  work, 

352 


4  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF  CHRIST  I. 

but  assisted  him  at  the  cost  of  many  personal  sacrifices,  and  to 
Dr.  P.  J.  Lennox,  under  whose  patient  and  scholarly  guidance 
the  work  was  completed. 

The  text  followed  is  that  of  Professor  Cook  in  his  edition  of 
The  Christ  of  Cynewulf,  second  impression,  1909.  The  additions 
that  have  accrued  in  the  bibliography  of  Christ  I,  in  as  far  as 
they  bear  upon  the  subject  of  the  study  presented,  are  noted  in 
their  proper  places.  The  Patrologia  Latina,  edited  by  Migne,  is 
quoted  as  P.  L. 


CONTENTS 

I.  Introduction    7 

II.  The  Sources  as  forming  the  Bases  for  the  Divisions 15 

1.  The  Divisions  in  Christ  1 15 

2.  The  Sources  of  the  twelve  Divisions 22 

Divis'ion  I   23 

Division  II   23 

Division  III    25 

Division  IV 25 

Division  V    26 

Division  VI    26 

Division  VII    .....' 27 

Division  VIII    29 

Division  IX    32 

Division  X    33 

Division  XI    43 

Division  XII    45 

3.  The  Sources  of  the  Lost  Portion 48 

III.  The  Sources  as  found  in  actual  Church  Use 53 

1.  General  Observations 53 

2.  The  Seven  Universal  O's 61 

3.  The  Added  or  Monastic  O's 66 

4.  The   Remaining   Sources 76 

IV.  Conclusion    81 

1.  The  Dependence  of  Christ  I  upon  the  Antiphonary 81 

2.  Corollary  "A"  :   Further  dependence  upon  the  Antiphonary. . .  86 

3.  Corollary  "B" :    The  Working  Methods  of  Cynewulf  and  the 

Unity  of  the  Christ 89 

4.  Corollary  "C" :   The  Sources  of  the  Christ  and  the  Poet 93 

5.  Conclusion    99 

V.  Bibliography  101 


INTRODUCTION 

The  first  part  of  Cynewulf's  Christ,  the  Advent,  or  Christ  //  is 
contained  in  the  439  lines  appearing  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Exeter  Book.  This  portion  of  the  Christ  had  long  been  a  puzzle 
to  students,  until,  in  his  edition  of  1900,^  Professor  Albert  S.  Cook 
solved  the  mystery  surrounding  the  sources  upon  which  it  is 
based,  and  thus  opened  the  way  to  a  better  understanding  of  this 
portion  of  the  poem.  For  the  knowledge,  that  Christ  I  is  based 
chiefly  on  the  Great  Antiphons  of  Advent,  called  the  Advent  O's, 
aided  in  determining  more  precisely  the  character  of  the  poem, 
in  detecting  more  minutely  the  divisions  in  it,  and,  above  all,  in 
realizing  more  fully  the  spirit  of  deep  religious  fervor  out  of 
which  it  was  born.  As  an  aid  in  directing  students  and  lovers  of 
the  Christ  to  a  proper  appreciation  of  all  these  phases  of  the 
poem,  the  scholarly  edition  of  Professor  Cook  merits  a  distinction 
never  before  achieved  in  the  presentation  of  an  Old  English  text. 

With  all  the  diligent  research  and  painstaking  labor  which 
Professor  Cook  has  bestowed  upon  the  study  of  the  Christ,  he  is 
aware  of  the  need  of  further  investigation  in  the  matter  of  certain 
problems  still  clamoring  for  a  solution.  That  such  problems 
exist,  no  serious  student  of  Cynewulf  will  deny. 

After  a  more  detailed  study  of  the  Christ,  and  in  particular  of 
Part  I,  the  conviction  grew  upon  me  that  the  attention  given  on 
the  part  of  investigators  to  what  appeared  to  me  the  true  and 
full  relation  of  Christ  I  to  its  sources  was  inadequate.  For,  with 
all  the  deeper  and  more  accurate  knowledge  that  we  now  have 
of  Part  I  of  the  Christ,  the  belief  apparently  still  prevails  among 
scholars  that  this  portion  of  the  poem  presents  in  its  composition 
a  more  or  less  meaningless  jumble  of  lyrical  outbursts,  illustrative 
of  the  disjecta  membra,  rudis  indigestaque  moles  of  Ovid.  That 
the  poet  maintains  no  orderly  treatment  of  the  subjects  within 
this  section  of  the  Christ,  seems  to  be  a  foregone  conclusion. 


^  This  terminology,  employed  chiefly  by  European  scholars,  will  be  here 
adopted  for  the  sake  of  brevity  and  convenience. 

'  The  Christ  of  Cynewulf,  edited  with  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Glossary, 
by  Albert  S.  Cook.    Boston,  1900.    The  Albion  Series. 

7 


^8Ls  •     c  .  .  ^.  t  THE  DEPKNDEJNCK   OF   CHRIST   I. 

.  .Th^at-titude  thus  taken  towards  the  scheme  or  plan  of  Christ  I 
^is  assumed  to  be  the  natural  one,  flowing  from  the  very  character 
of  the  poem  and  the  nature  of  its  sources.  Perhaps  this  is  partly 
the  reason  why  so  little  attention  was  hitherto  given  to  a  detailed 
study  of  the  larger  construction  in  Christ  I. 

In  defining  the  task  which  is  here  proposed  as  a  step  towards 
acquiring  a  better  understanding  of  the  relation  which  the  smaller 
divisions  of  Christ  I,  until  now  but  disjecta  membra,  bear  to  the 
sources  upon  which  they  are  based,  and  to  the  plan  of  construc- 
tion in  the  poem,  the  precise  attitude  of  previous  investigators 
towards  this  phase  of  Christ  I  must  first  be  ascertained. 

Cook,^  in  speaking  of  the  faults  of  construction  in  the  Christ, 

says: 

The  fault  of  Cynewulf  is  in  harmony  with  the  tendency 
of  the  Old  English  poets  in  general,  a  tendency  to  dwell  too 
much  upon  details,  and  neglect  the  architectonics,  the  per- 
spective of  the  whole.  The  more  intensely  a  poet  feels,  the 
greater  is  this  danger,  especially  if  a  sufficient  outline  has 
not  been  provided  for  him  by  an  author  on  whom  he  is 
dependent.  Thus  it  is  that  the  construction  of  Parts  I  and 
II  of  the  Christ  is  better  than  that  of  Part  III :  the  two 
together  are  not  much  longer  than  the  third,  and  the  originals 
selected  were  in  each  of  those  two  cases  sufficient  to  provide 
the  framework  of  the  division,  while  in  Part  III,  notwith- 
standing the  preponderance  of  the  Latin  Judgment  Hymn 
as  a  source,  much  material,  not  greatly  inferior  in  extent 
and  interest,  is  drawn  from  other  authors.  It  is  true  that 
Part  I,  being  based  upon  a  series  of  Antiphons,  is  essentially 
lyrical  in  character,  and  the  only  unity  demanded  is  that 
secured  through  the  character  of  the  Advent  season  to  which 
the  Antiphons  belong. 

Cook  grants  to  Parts  I  and  II  of  the  Christ  a  better  form  of 
construction  than  to  Part  III,  inasmuch  as  the  Latin  originals 
for  these  two  parts  provided  the  poet  with  a  framework.  Yet, 
as  affecting  particularly  Part  I,  this  framework  is  evidently  not 
considered  as  contributing  anything  definite  towards  a  closer 
unity  of  construction  in  that  part,  for  we  are  told  that  the  only 
unity  demanded,  in  this  essentially  lyrical  part  of  the  Christ,  is 
that  secured  through  the  character  of  the  Advent  season.  Thus 
Cook  appears  to  have  stated  a  problem  without  himself  seeing 
the  value  of  it.     He  admits  the  dependence  of  the  poet  upon  a 

'  Pp.  xc.  f . 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  9 

framework,  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  does  not  expect  the  poem 
to  derive  any  unity  of  construction  from  that  dependence.  He 
does  not  see  beyond  a  lyrical  unity. 

Another  student  of  the  Christ,  who  has  taken  up  the  question 
of  the  construction  in  the  poem,  is  George  A.  Smithson.  In  his 
study  of  the  plot  technique  of  the  Christ*  he  presents  a  more 
detailed  investigation  of  the  unity  of  the  poem  as  a  whole,  as 
well  as  of  the  unity  in  each  of  its  three  parts.  He  there '  under- 
takes to  define  more  precisely  the  unity  which  should  exist  in  the 
Christ  as  a  whole,  saying : 

In  the  Christ  we  may  not  look  for  the  unity  that  lies  in 
a  single  action  with  its  beginning,  its  middle,  and  its  end. 
Since  the  Christ  is  not  narrative,  since  it  does  not  arouse  in 
us  the  feeling  of  suspense  as  to  the  event  or  outcome  of  the 
whole,  we  can  look  for  the  lyric  unity  alone.  This  is  the 
unity  of  mood  that  is  more  easily  felt  than  formulated.  That 
the  poem  as  a  whole  has  this  unity  cannot  be  doubted.  Its 
one  predominating  mood  is  the  spirit  of  Advent,  of  the 
three-fold  coming  of  Christ  to  men,  through  the  Virgin  birth, 
through  the  faith  of  the  believer,  and  through  the  final 
judgment.  That  the  general  unity  of  the  whole  has  not 
always  been  recognized,  that  the  three  main  parts  of  the  poem 
have  been  regarded  as  separate  entities,  can  be  due  only  to 
the  fact  that  students  have  failed  to  recognize  the  existence 
or  the  force  of  that  unity  which  is  of  mood  alone. 

Though  the  chief  interest  of  the  present  study  is  confined  to 
the  unity  seen  in  Part  I  of  the  Christ,  this  general  characterization 
of  the  lyric  unity  in  the  poem  as  a  whole  cannot  remain  un- 
challenged, since  its  purpose  is  to  strengthen  the  theory  of  lyric 
unity  in  each  of  the  three  parts,  thus  affecting  also  the  larger 
construction  of  Part  I. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  there  is  a  necessary  unity  of 
mood  throughout  the  poem  as  a  whole,  based  on  the  threefold 
coming  of  Christ  to  men,  through  the  Virgin  birth,  the  faith  of 
the  believer,  and  the  final  judgment.  In  the  first  place,  the  idea 
of  a  threefold  coming  of  Christ  was  plainly  foreign  to  the  mind 
of  Cynewulf.     He  nowhere  expresses  it;  he  nowhere  seems  to 

*  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic.  A  Study  in  the  Plot  Technique  of 
the  Juliana,  the  Elene,  the  Andreas,  and  the  Christ,  in  comparison  with 
the  Beowulf  and  with  the  Latin  Literature  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  George 
Arnold  Smithson.    University  of  California,  1910. 

*Ibid.,  325. 


30  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

imply  it.  As  the  only  proof  for  this  unity,  Smithson  gives  the 
words  of 'St.  Bernard:®  Triplicem  enim  ejus  adventum  novimus: 
ad  homines,  in  homines,  contra  homines.  In  passing,  it  might  be 
noted  that  St.  Bernard  died  A.D.  1153,  at  least  three  centuries 
after  Cynewulf.  Thus  it  is  quite  natural  for  students  to  fail  to 
recognize  the  existence  of  a  unity  based  on  St.  Bernard's  words. 
When  therefore  Smithson  says :  ^ 

The  division  of  the  Christ  into  three  main  parts  was  prob- 
ably due  to  the  church's  recognition  of  a  three-fold  advent 
of  Christ, 
his  argument  is  inadequate. 

It  would  be  futile  to  question  the  recognition  of  a  threefold 
advent  in  the  mediaeval  Church.  But,  to  all  appearances,  the 
idea  of  a  threefold  coming  of  Christ,  as  expressed  by  St.  Bernard, 
was  a  development  of  the  later  Middle  Ages  when  mysticism  was 
in  flower.  It  will  be  noted  in  this  connection  that  St.  Bernard 
represented  the  peak  of  that  age  of  mysticism,  being  himself 
often  referred  to  as  the  "mystic  of  the  mystics."  Though  mystical 
interpretations,  as  aiTecting  the  liturgy  of  the  Church,  had  been 
current  at  the  time  of  Cynewulf,  a  specific  instance  in  which  this 
particular  reference  to  a  threefold  coming  of  Christ  can  be  found 
appears  to  be  lacking.  Cook,  who  so  diligently  searched  for  all 
possible  references,  is  silent  on  the  subject.  He,  indeed,  quotes 
the  words  of  St.  Bernard  above,  yet  only  in  illustration  of  the 
spirit  of  Advent.  He  does  not  apply  them  to  the  three  main  parts 
of  the  Christ. 

In  fact,  the  Patrologia  Latina,  edited  by  Migne,  contains  no 
record  of  an  expression  equivalent  to  that  of  St.  Bernard  before 
the  eleventh  century.  In  previous  works  of  the  Fathers  and 
ecclesiastical  writers  the  interpretation  of  the  coming  of  Christ 
to  men  was  apparently  restricted  to  the  two  advents  expressed 
in  the  liturgy  of  the  Advent  season,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  Incarnation,  and  His  final  coming  at  the  Last  Judg- 
ment. Thus  Tertullian  *  of  the  third  century,  and  Maximus  • 
of  the  fifth  century. 

*  Third  Advent  Sermon,  Migne,  P.  L.,  183,  45;  cf.  Smithson,  343;  quoted 
also  in  Cook,  xxvii  f. 

'  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic,  342. 

/See  his  Liber  Apologeticus  adversus  Gentes,  Migne,  P.  L.,  1,  400;  and 
his  Liber  IIL  adversus  Marcionem,  ibid.,  2,  329. 

'See    his    Homilia    IL,    Migne,    P.    L.,    57,    225.— Trautmann    therefore 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  31 

The  thought  of  Christ's  coming  to  the  soul  of  the  believer  is 
naturally  implied  in  the  preparation  for  the  feast  of  the  Nativity 
which  constitutes  the  special  object  of  the  Advent  season.  As 
such  it  is  contained  in  the  longings  and  expectations  expressed 
so  abundantly  throughout  the  Advent  liturgy,  and  in  particular 
in  the  Greater  Antiphons.  As  such  it  also  appears  in  the  lyrical 
paraphrases  of  Christ  I.  But  this  thought  of  the  spiritual  advent 
of  Christ  apparently  found  no  outward  expression,  in  the  sense 
of  St.  Bernard's  words,  until  a  later  time.  Wherefore,  the  argu- 
ment taken  from  the  Church's  recognition  of  a  threefold  advent, 
as  affecting  the  division  of  the  Christ  into  three  main  parts, 
appears  decidedly  defective. 

In  the  second  place,  Part  II  of  the  Christ  is  simply  not  a  coming 
in  faith  to  the  believer,  however  much  we  may  strive  to  give  it 
this  interpretation.  Cook  is  loath  to  call  the  second  part  a  com- 
ing at  all.  He  says  ^^  of  the  opinion  which  Dietrich  held  con- 
cerning this : 

*  *  *  it  verges  on  the  absurd  when  he  (Dietrich)  declines 
to  call  the  Ascension  a  departure  from  earth,  or  a  return  to 
heaven,  and  designates  it  as  an  arrival — a  coming — into  glory. 

If  the  Ascension  (Part  II  of  the  Christ),  as  treated  by  Cyne- 
wulf,  represents  a  departure  from  earth,  and  not  a  coming  into 
glory,  it  can  much  less  be  made  to  represent  that  phase  of  Christ's 
coming  which  St.  Bernard  designates  as  the  adventus  in  homines. 
Indeed,  the  coming  of  Christ  in  faith  to  the  believer  can  hardly 
be  brought  in  connection  with  his  departure  from  earth,  and  it 
would  be  extremely  difficult  to  show  that  such  a  connection 
exists  in  the  second  part  of  the  Christ.  It  thus  appears  that  too 
much  is  being  made  of  an  argument  not  only  invalidated  by  its 
anachronism,  but  also  highly  doubtful  in  its  appHcation  to  Part 
II  of  the  Christ.  If  a  lyric  unity  really  prevails  in  the  poem  as 
a  whole,  it  must  be  sought  in  a  predominating  mood  other  than 
the  spirit  of  Advent  as  embodied  in  the  threefold  coming  of 
Christ  to  men. 

The  unity  of  the  Christ,  despite  Smithson's  efforts  to  establish 

it  securely,  still  constitutes  a  problem  in  Old  English  Literature. 

Although  it  is  not  within  the  purpose  of  my  study  to  enter  upon 

a  full  discussion  of  this  unity  in  the  Christ,  a  suggestion  which 

seemed  to  be  right  when  he  said  that  the  threefold  coming  of  Christ  has 
not  been  found  in  any  other  author  (before  Cynewulf)  ;  cf.  Cook,  xix. 
''P.  xvii. 


IJ^  THE  DEPENDENCE  O^   CHRIST   1. 

tends  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  problem  may  be  of  service 
to  future  investigators. 

Since  the  connection  between  Parts  II  and  III  of  the  Christ  is 
more  easily  discernible  than  the  connection  between  Parts  I  and 
II,  the  unity  of  the  two  latter  is  frequently  called  into  question, 
some  scholars  even  refusing  to  admit  the  authorship  of  Cyne- 
wulf  in  Part  I.  The  relation^  however,  which  the  theme  of  Part 
I  bears  to  the  theme  of  Part  II,  may  have  been  suggested  to  the 
poet  by  the  lines  of  the  fifth  stanza  of  the  well-known  Advent 
hymn,  Veni,  redemptor  gentium}'^    The  lines  in  question  are : 

Egressus  ejus  a  Patre, 
Regressus  ejus  ad  Patrem, 
Excursus  usque  ad  inferos, 
Recursus  ad  sedem  Dei. 

An  analysis  of  this  stanza  will  show  the  parallelism  between 
lines  1  and  3,  and  between  lines  2  and  4,  the  two  together  being 
placed  in  opposition  to  each  other: 

Egressus  ejus  a  Patre — Excursus  usque  ad  inferos, 
Regressus  ejus  ad  Patrem — Recursus  ad  sedem  Dtei. 

The  parallel  thoughts  complement  each  other,  in  the  first  case 
by  adding  to  the  terminus  a  quo,  "Egressus  ejus  a  Patre,"  the 
terminus  ad  quem,  "Excursus  usque  ad  inferos";  in  the  second 
case  by  a  mere  synonymous  expression. 

Parts  I  and  II  of  the  Christ,  in  their  general  themes,  bear  out 
very  strikingly  the  two  thoughts  contained  in  this  stanza  of  the 
Veni,  redemptor  gentium,  that  is,  the  two  extreme  points  in  the 
temporal  or  human  life  of  the  Son  of  God,  his  Incarnation  and 
his  Ascension,  his  advent  among  men  and  his  departure  from 
them.  What  is  more,  the  poet  appears  to  develop  the  first  thought 
in  its  completeness  by  laying  a  peculiar  stress  not  only  upon  the 
terminus  a  quo,  but  also  upon  the  terminus  ad  quem  of  Christ's 
advent.  For  the  frequent  recurrence,  in  Christ  I,  oi  the  theme 
of  Christ's  coexistence  with  the  Father  ("egressus  ejus  a  Patre") 
and  the  motive  drawn  from  the  harrowing  of  Hell  ("excursus 
usque  ad  inferos")  has  been  pointed  out  by  all  scholars  dealing 
with  the  Christ. 

The  thoughts,  then,  expressed  in  the  fifth  stanza  of  this  Advent 
hymn,  would  seem  to  furnish  a  more  plausible  basis  for  a  unity 
Christ  than  the  thought  of  Christ's  advent  ad  homines  and  in 
of  mood,  or  a  lyric  unity,  in  the  first  and  second  part  of  the 
homines  can  give.    The  theme  of  Part  III  of  the  Christ  follows 


"  Duffield,  Latin  Hymns,  p.  56. — cf.  also,  Mone,  Lateinische  Hymncn  des 
Mittelalters,  i.  42;  The  Hymner  (of  the  Sarum  Breviary),  p.  4. — This  hymn 
is  by  St.  Ambrose  (died  397).  In  the  Leofric  Collectar  it  appears  in  the 
Matins  of  Advent,  while  the  Aberdeen  Breviary  of  1508  assigns  it  to  the 
Vigil  of  the  Nativity. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  13 

naturally  from  that  of  Part  11/^  and  thus  the  desired  unity  in 
the  poem  as  a  whole  would  not  be  destroyed.  In  Christ  I  Christ 
can  be  considered  as  beginning  his  work  of  Redemption,  in 
Christ  II,  as  completing  the  work  and  receiving  his  personal  re- 
ward from  the  Father,  while  in  Christ  III,  as  demanding  the 
fruits  of  the  Redemption  from  the  whole  human  race. 

While  Smithson  is  a  firm  believer  in  the  lyric  unity  existing 
in  the  structure  of  the  Christ  as  a  whole  (yet  his  argument  was 
seen  to  be  too  weak  for  establishing  this  theory),  he  denies  all 
unity  within  each  of  the  three  parts,  though,  in  his  opinion,  the 
smaller  divisions  of  the  three  parts  themselves  again  show  an 
excellent  coherence  within  their  own  individual  limits.  In  other 
words,  the  divisions  within  the  three  parts  of  the  Christ  are  want- 
ing in  all  unity  among  themselves,  inasmuch  as  they  show  a 
distinct  lack  of  coherence  in  their  relation  to  one  another.  Speak- 
ing in  particular  of  Part  I,  he  says :  ^^ 

*  *  *  the  author  of  the  Christ  shows  the  ability  to  con- 
ceive the  smaller  scene  as  a  whole  with  the  proper  relation 
of  its  parts.  Now,  when  we  turn  to  the  larger  scale,  we  see 
forthwith  that  he  does  not  show  the  ability  to  view  the 
smaller  scenes  as  related  parts  of  a  larger  whole.  A  cursory 
examination  shows  that  Part  I  is  a  series  of  lyric  outbursts 
thrown  together  at  random.  *  *  *  The  fourth  division 
and  the  ninth  are  addressed  directly  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Between  them  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  eighth  are  addressed  to 
Christ,  while  the  seventh  is  the  colloquy  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
The  third  addresses  the  Holy  Jerusalem,  and  the  eleventh 
the  Trinity.  Moreover,  the  divisions  are  not  arranged  as 
they  have  to  do  with  the  material  coming  of  Christ  or  the 
spiritual.  The  first,  fifth,  eighth,  and  eleventh  refer  specially 
to  the  spiritual  coming.  Such  arrangement  could  have  been 
determined  by  nothing  but  chance. 

Part  I,  then,  shows  an  absolute  lack  of  the  sense  for  larger 
coherence,  of  the  restraint  in  the  midst  of  lyric  fervor  which 
determines  the  structural  plan  of  the  whole. 
From  these  words  it  is  seen  that  the  position  taken  by  Cook 
in  demanding  of  Part  I  of  the  Christ  merely  a  "unity  that  is 
secured  through  the  character  of  the  Advent  season,"  is  carried 
by  Smithson  to  its  ultimate  conclusion.     If  no  other  but  a  lyric 
unity,  or  unity  of  mood,  is  demanded,  it  must  be  because  all  other 
unity  is  lacking  in  the  poem.    Consequently  there  is  no  unity  of 
construction,  not  even  a  sense  for  a  larger  coherence  in  Part  I 
of  the  Christ.     Smithson  then  goes  on  to  show  just  in  what  man- 
ner the  twelve  divisions  are  "thrown  together  at  random."    Thus 
even  the  framework  derived  from  the  Latin  originals,  and  ad- 
mitted by  Cook,  vanishes  completely  from  the  plan  of  the  poem. 

"See  especially  lines  523-526. 

"  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic,  335  f . 


14  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

And  because  no  connection  whatever  is  seen  between  the  smaller 
divisions,  it  is  plain  that  such  arrangement  could  have  been  de- 
termined by  nothing  but  chance.  The  lyric  fervor  of  the  poet 
alone  determines  the  structural  plan  of  the  whole. 

Fortunately  for  subsequent  students  of  the  Christ,  the  con- 
clusions at  which  Smithson  thus  arrives  are  admittedly  the  result 
of  a  mere  cursory  examination  of  the  contents  and  sources  of 
Part  I.  A  more  detailed  study  of  this  particular  question  of 
structural  unity  in  Christ  I  is  therefore  still  needed,  and  it  should 
not  remain  a  fruitless  endeavor.  For,  if  the  impression  has  gained 
general  currency  that  the  Christ  is  "essentially  the  work  of  a 
poet,  though  of  a  poet  untrained  in  composition,"  ^*  is  this  not 
principally  due  to  an  imperfect  understanding  of  the  influences 
which  the  sources  themselves  have  had  upon  the  arrangement 
of  material  in  the  poem?  Have  we  ever  seriously  striven  to 
acquire  a  better  and  more  detailed  knowledge  of  the  framework 
which  Cynewulf  is  supposed  to  have  derived  from  his  Latin 
originals  ? 

It  is  true,  the  investigations  devoted  to  problems  in  the  Christ 
have  been  few  and  well  scattered  since  the  appearance  of  Cook's 
edition  of  that  poem.  The  reason  for  this,  no  doubt,  lies  partly 
in  the  small  number  of  students  who  devote  their  labors  to  the 
field  of  Old  English  Poetry,  and  partly  in  the  specific  liturgical 
research  necessarily  connected  with  problems  affecting  the  con- 
tents of  the  Christ.  Perhaps  also  the  very  completeness  of 
Cook's  edition  of  the  Christ,  and  the  copiousness  of  his  Notes,^^ 
have  caused  the  impression  among  students  that  whatever  prob- 
lems still  lie  unsolved  in  the  Christ  are  of  minor  importance  and, 
in  as  far  as  they  can  be  solved,  not  worth  the  efiforts  of  extended 
research. 

If  therefore  an  investigation  of  the  structural  plan  of  Christ  I 
and  of  the  arrangement  of  material  therein  is  here  undertaken, 
it  is  only  from  a  conviction  that  the  full  relation  of  the  poem  to 
its  sources  has  heretofore  not  been  satisfactorily  disclosed,  and 
that  these  sources  are  unjustly  held  responsible  for  the  apparent 
lack  of  a  systematic  treatment  of  the  subjects  chosen  by  the  poet. 
A  closer  examination  of  the  sources  which  form  the  bases  for  the 
individual  paraphrases  in  Christ  I  as  they  are  found  in  the  actual 
Church  use  of  the  early  Middle  Ages  will,  I  believe,  reveal  more 
fully  their  influence  upon  the  succession  of  smaller  divisions  in 
the  poem.  And  thus,  I  trust,  will  Cynewulf's  dependence  upon 
the  Antiphonary  appear  in  a  clearer  light,  for  it  will  be  seen  not 
merely  as  confining  itself  to  the  themes  derived  from  that  source- 
book, but  as  extending  to  the  very  plan  of  construction  in  Part  I 
of  the  Christ. 


"Stopford  Brooke,  History  of  Early  English  Literature  (1892),  391. 
*'A  further  discussion  of  this  will  be  found  in  the  concluding  chapter 
of  this  study,  under  Corollary  "C." — see  pp.  95  f.  below. 


II 

THE   SOURCES   AS   FORMING   THE   BASES   FOR  THE 

DIVISIONS 


1.  The  Divisions  in  Christ  I 

Some  divisions  were  always  made  in  the  text  by  editors  and 
commentators  of  the  Christ,  but  it  was  not  until  the  sources  of 
Part  I  were  discovered  by  Cook  that  a  proper  distribution  of  the 
text  of  Christ  I  was  achieved.  Previous  to  that  discovery,  the 
evidences  of  division  found  in  the  manuscript  itself  ^  were  mostly 
taken  as  the  basis  for  an  apportionment  of  the  lines  into  various 
sections,  though  some  scholars,  in  consequence  of  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  poem,  gradually  saw  the  need  of  more  accurate 
divisions. 

Thus  Wanley  and  GoUancz  adhered  strictly  to  the  manuscript 
divisions,  which  mark  off  the  following  five  sections  in  Christ  I: 

1.  Lines  1-70. 

2.  Lines  71-163. 

3.  Lines  164-274. 

4.  Lines  276-377. 

5.  Lines  378-439.2 

Thorpe  and  Dietrich  added  one  division  at  line  416.  Grein 
and  Wiilker  increased  them  to  eleven,  making  additional  divisions 
at  lines  50,  104,  130,  214,  and  348.  The  discovery  of  the  sources 
made  necessary  only  one  addition  to  the  divisions  accepted  by 
Grein  and  Wiilker,  namely,  at  line  18.  Thus  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing twelve  smaller  divisions  in  Christ  I: 

(1)  lines  1-17;  (2)  lines  18-49;  (3)  lines  50-70;  (4)  lines 
71-103;  (5)  lines  104-129;  (6)  lines  130-163;  (7)  lines 
164-213;  (8)  lines  214-274;  (9)  lines  275-347;  (10)  lines 
348-377;  (11)  lines  378-415;  (12)  lines  416-439. 

*  The  Christ  of  Cynewulf  appears  at  the  beginning  of  the  Codex  Exoni- 
ensis,  or  Exeter  Book,  which  is  accepted  as  dating  from  the  early  eleventh 
century,  though  our  poem,  from  internal  evidences  of  language  and  metre, 
is  assigned  to  the  end  of  the  eighth,  or  beginning  of  the  ninth  century. 
For  a  complete  description  of  the  manuscript  see  Cook,  pp.  xiii-xvi, 

"  The  division  marks  in  the  manuscript,  as  affecting  Christ  I,  consist  of 
a  one-line  space  between  the  text,  and  additional  signs,  like  :  7 ,  or  :  — . 
This  is  the  case  in  all  the  instances  given  here,  except  at  line  275,  where 
the  space  between  this  line  and  the  preceding  line  has  only  the  value  of 
about  a  third  of  a  line. — See  Cook,  pp.  70  f. 

15 


16  THE  DE:pENDE:NCE   of   CHRIST   I. 

Each  of  these  twelve  divisions  appears  in  the  poem  as  a  sep- 
arate entity,  and,  except  the  first  in  which  the  beginning  is  lost, 
opens  with  the  word  eala.^  These  individual  sections,  moreover, 
are  independent  of  each  other  in  such  a  manner  as  to  mark  no 
progression  of  thought  or  development  of  plot.  They  are  distinct 
and  separate  lays. 

The  sources  upon  which  Cook  found  these  independent  portions 
of  Christ  I  to  be  based  are  classified  by  him  as  follows :  * 

(a)  The  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent,  sometimes  called 

the  O's ; 

(b)  Four  Antiphons  included  by  certain  mediaeval  churches 

among  the  Greater  Antiphons,  or  associated  with 
them; 

(c)  Two  of  the  Antiphons  for  Lauds  on  Trinity  Sunday 

(here  counted  as  one)  according  to  the  Sarum  Use. 

The  last  section  of  Christ  I,  lines  416-439,  was  regarded  by 
Cook  as  a  sort  of  climax,  or  rather  a  resumptive  dictated  by 
what  had  preceded.  It  was  his  opinion  ^  that  "we  shall  hardly 
look  for  a  specific  source  of  these  reflections"  contained  in  the 
closing  lines  of  Part  I.  In  1914,  however,  Professor  Samuel 
Moore  ®  completed  the  discovery  of  the  sources  by  determining 
the  basis  even  for  this  final  section  of  Christ  I.  He  observed  that 
this  last  portion  of  the  poem  is  based  on  the  Antiphon  O  admir- 
abile  commercium. 

The  investigations  of  Cook,  supplemented  by  those  of  Moore, 
have  resulted  in  the  following  sources  for  the  twelve  smaller 
divisions  of  Christ  I: 

I  Lines       1-17    :  Based  on  O  Rex  gentium 
II  Lines     18-49    :  Based  on  O  Clavis  David 

III  Lines     50-70    :  Based  on  O  Hierusalem 

IV  Lines     71-103:  Based  on  O  Virgo  virginum 
V  Lines  104-129:  Based  on  O  Oriens 

VI  Lines  130-163:  Based  on  O  Emmanuel 
VII  Lines  164-213 :   The  Passus. 


Bala  IS  interpreted  by  Cook  as  an  interjection  equivalent  to  our  "O," 
"Lo,"  "Alas"!  It  is  thus  apparent  that  the  text  of  the  manuscript  itself 
gave  a  sufficiently  noticeable  clue  for  the  proper  divisions  in  the  poem, 
which,  no  doubt,  aided  in  directing  Cook  to  the  sources. 

*P.  71. 

"  P.  113. 

"  In  Modern  Language  Notes,  xxix,  226  f . 


ON    THE    ANTIPHONARY.  17 

VIII  Lines  214-274:  Based  on  0  Rex  Pacifice 
IX  Lines  275-347 :  Based  on  O  mundi  Domina 
X  Lines  348-377:  Based  on  O  Radix  Jesse  (perhaps?) 
XI  Lines  378-415 :  Based  on  two  Trinity  Antiphons 
XII  Lines  416-439 :  Based  on  O  admirabile  commercium 

The  knowledge  of  these  sources^  necessarily  gave  a  new  aspect 
to  the  divisions  in  Christ  I,  for  now  it  was  evident  that  the  twelve 
sections  of  the  poem  constituted  so  many  separate  portions  treat- 
ing a  separate  and  definite  theme.  There  was,  moreover,  a  reason 
for  making  the  divisions  which,  save  one,  Grein  and  Wiilker  had 
already  recognized. 

After  a  full  knowledge  of  the  proper  divisions  in  the  text  of 
Christ  I  had  been  thus  obtained,  scholars  apparently  no  longer 
paid  any  attention  to  the  divisions  marked  in  the  manuscript 
itself.  In  this  they  were,  I  believe,  quite  unfortunate,  for  a 
comparison  of  the  sections  indicated  in  the  Exeter  Book  with 
the  divisions  demanded  by  the  sources  will  reveal  to  us  a  new 
beauty  of  the  Christ,  which  at  the  same  time  points  to  a  definite 
plan  in  the  construction  of  the  poem. 

The  one-line  spaces  in  the  manuscript  form  the  following 
groups  of  smaller  divisions  or  paraphrases : 

1  O  Rex  gentium 
I  2  O  Clavis  David 
3  O  Hierusalem 
1  O  Virgo  virginum 
II  2  O  Oriens 
3  O  Emmanuel 

-  The  Passus,  or  Dialogue 

1  O  Rex  Pacifice 

III  2  O  mundi  Domina 
3  O  Radix  (?) 

IV  -  The  Doxology 

-  O  admirable  commercium  ^ 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  division  marks  in  the  manuscript 
do  not  interfere  with  the  smaller  divisions  demanded  by  the 
sources,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  give  them  a  new  and  beautiful 
meaning.      For,    in    the    grouping    of    the    O-paraphrases    thus 

^  No  account  is  here  taken  of  the  slight  division  mark,  consisting  of  about 
a  third-line  space,  at  line  275. 


18  THE  DEPE:NDE:NCE   of   CHRIST   I. 

obtained,  we  behold  a  symmetry  of  construction  which  strangely 
contradicts  the  theory  of  scholars  that  Cynewulf  neglects  the 
''architectonics,"  the  "perspective"  of  his  poem.  If  it  can  be 
safely  assumed  that  the  West-Saxon  transcriber  of  the  Christ 
followed  the  textual  divisions  originally  contained  in  the  poem, 
Cynewulf  can  be  credited  with  a  well-defined  plan  or  outline 
in  the  composition  of  Christ  I.  For  by  discounting  the  Passus, 
which  holds  a  unique  position  in  the  poem  and  is  not  based  on  a 
Greater  Antiphon  of  Advent  like  the  other  divisions,  and  by 
dropping  the  last  section  based  on  the  O  admirabile  comniercium 
which  is  clearly  a  later  appendage,  the  symmetry  in  Christ  I  is 
seen  to  be  a  perfect  one.  Each  of  the  three  groups  contains  but 
three  O-paraphrases,  followed  at  the  end  by  an  elaborate  Dbx- 
ology.  It  will  also  be  observed  that,  of  the  three  O's  in  each 
group,  two  are  invariably  addressed  to  Christ,  while  the  third 
is  directed  either  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  as  in  the  case  of 
groups  II  and  III,  or  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  as  in  the  case  of 
group  I. 

The  appearance  which  Christ  I  thus  presents  suggests  the 
structure  of  a  Church  hymn,  especially  since  the  poet  has  added 
to  the  0-stanzas  a  separate  paraphrase  in  praise  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  not  unlike  the  customary  Doxology  which  terminates  all 
hymns  of  the  Church.  Wherefore,  though  it  would  appear  rash 
to  attribute  to  the  poem  as  such  a  strictly  hymnic  form  in  the 
details  of  its  structure,  the  larger  outline  of  Christ  I,  as  seen 
here,  seems  to  betray  an  intention  on  Cynewulf's  part  of  follow- 
ing at  least  the  broader  structural  plan  of  the  usual  Church  hymn 
in  the  organization  of  the  smaller  members  of  his  poetical  com- 
position. 

The  theory  which  would  credit  the  poet  with  a  hymnic  plan  of 
this  kind  when  arranging  the  paraphrases  within  the  poem,  re- 
ceives additional  color  from  the  very  nature  of  the  paraphrases 
themselves.  For  it  is  well  known  that  the  earliest  impression 
which  Part  I  had  left  upon  the  students  of  the  Christ  was  that 
of  its  general  hymnic  character.  Thus  Wanley  called  Christ  I, 
Poema  sive  Hymnus  de  Nativitate  D.  N.  I.  C.  et  de  B.  V.  Maria, 
and  designated  the  smaller  divisions  which  he  recognized  as 
Poema  sive  Hymnus.  In  like  manner  was  the  poem  labeled  by 
Conybeare  and  Ettmiiller.^     In  his  brief  characterization  of  Part 

*Cf.  Cook,  67  f. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  19 

I  of  the  Christ  Alois  Brandl  ^  says  :  Christ  I  besteht  aus  Hymnen, 
Gebeten,  und  einem  Dialog.  Stopford  Brooke  ^°  speaks  of  all 
the  hymnic  poems  in  this  section,  and  adds : 

Though  I  have  used  the  word  "epic"  in  regard  to  this 
poem,  it  is  not  an  epic  in  any  true  sense  of  the  word.  It  is 
more  a  series  of  hymns,  at  least  at  the  beginning,  closed  by 
choric  outbursts  of  praise. 

These  and  similar  accounts  of  the  general  character  and  content 
of  Christ  I  have  found  their  way  into  almost  all  handbooks  of 
English  Literature,  and  in  the  light  of  modern  investigations 
dealing  with  the  Christ  of  Cynewulf,  the  impression  thus  created 
cannot  be  entirely  suppressed.  It  is  true,  in  its  original  and 
restricted  meaning  of  laus  Dei  cum  cantu,  the  term  "hymn"  may 
not  find  a  ready  application  to  the  poem  of  Christ  I,  for  it  is 
doubtful  if  the  element  of  actual  singing  had  ever  entered  the  aim 
and  purpose  of  its  composition.^^  Yet,  the  later  expansion  of  the 
term  conforms  more  closely  to  the  actual  character  and  content  of 
the  poem. 

In  characterizing  the  sacred  Hymns  of  the  Church,  Clemens 
Blume  ^^  writes : 

We  have  long  understood  by  "hymnus"  a  song  whose 
sequence  of  words  is  ruled  by  metre  and  rhythm,  with  or 
without  rhyme,  or,  at  least,  by  a  symmetrical  arrangement  of 
the  stanzas.  *  *  *  Hymn  in  the  broader  meaning  of  the 
word  is  a  "spiritual  song"  or  a  "lyrical  religious  poem,"  con- 
sequently, hymnody  is  "religious  lyric"  in  distinction  from 
epic  and  didactic  poetry  and  in  contradistinction  to  profane 
lyric  poetry. 


^  Englische  Literatur,  in  Paul's  Grundriss,  IP,  1035. 

"  History  of  Early  English  Literature,  390. 

"  Wiilker,  in  his  Dramatische  Bestrebungen  der  Angelsachsen  (Grundriss, 
385),  remarks  that  one  might  easily  assume  that  these  hymns,  constituting 
Part  I,  were  sung  in  church  on  certain  festival  occasions.  The  Passus 
or  dialogue  between  Mary  and  Joseph,  in  particular,  has  been  looked  upon 
as  being  of  a  dramatic  character  with  possible  representation  on  the  stage. 
This  led  scholars  to  view  Division  VII  of  our  poem  as  the  beginning  of 
the  English  mystery  play  or  drama.  Yet,  in  our  discussion  below  it  will 
be  noted  to  what  extent  just  this  Passus  mars  the  hymnic  outline  which 
the  poet  may  have  had  in  mind  in  grouping  the  smaller  divisions  of  the 
poem.  For  the  opinions  held  by  Conybeare,  Wiilker,  Ebert,  Gollancz, 
and  Brooke  concerning  the  dramatic  character  of  the  Passus  see  Cook, 
96  f.  Brooke  (History  of  Early  English  Literature,  393)  is  even  now 
disinclined  to  "give  up  the  idea  that  these  hymns  were  sung  in  parts  in 
the   church." 

"  "Hymns,"  in  Catholic  Encyclopcedia,  vii,  595. 


20  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF    CHRIST   I. 

It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  Christ  /  as  a  whole  partakes  of 
these  characteristics  of  sacred  hymnody.  It  will  be  readily 
granted  that  it  is  a  "lyrical  religious  poem,"  that  it  is  neither  epic 
nor,  to  any  great  extent,  didactic  poetry.  Furthermore,  as  seen 
in  the  present  discussion,  the  manuscript  divisions  mark  off  the 
smaller  portions  of  the  poem  into  what  appears  '*a  symmetrical 
arrangement  of  the  stanzas,"  each  "stanza"  in  this  case  con- 
sisting of  three  O-paraphrases.  In  its  broader  application,  there- 
fore, the  term  hymn  aptly  characterizes  the  poem  of  Christ  I. 

The  general  hymnic  character  of  the  poem  as  a  whole  and  of 
the  individual  paraphrases  in  it  (for  they  are  songs  of  praise, 
though  not  necessarily  "cum  cantu")  lends  support  to  the  theory 
that  Cynewulf  had  the  structural  plan  of  a  Church  hymn  in  mind 
when  grouping  the  smaller  divisions  in  Christ  I.  It  may  be 
possible  that,  even  in  his  own  day,  Cynewulf  found  a  precedent 
for  such  a  poetical  hymn  in  the  "rhythmical  offices"  of  the 
Church.  In  this  connection  it  might  be  observed  that  the  Antiph- 
onary  of  Hartker,  the  earliest  known  codex  containing  all  the 
O-Antiphons  employed  by  Cynewulf,  has  such  rhythmical  offices. 
These  are  offices  in  which  not  only  the  hymns  but  all  that  is 
sung,  with  the  exception  of  the  psalms  and  lessons,  are  composed 
in  measured  language.  An  office  of  this  kind  in  the  Antiphonary 
of  Hartker  is  that  for  the  feast  De  VI  milibus  Virginum,^^  in 
which  ail  Antiphons  and  Responses  are  in  metre  and  often  in 
rime.  Perhaps  Cynewulf  had  in  mind  these  metrical  Antiphons 
of  the  "rhythmical  offices"  when  he  himself  paraphrased  in 
poetry  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent. 

Examples  of  Church  hymns,  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  term, 
which  are  built  upon  the  three-line  stanza,  are  not  wanting.  Such, 
for  instance,  is  the  hymn  Pange  lingua  gloriosi  praelium  certaminis 
of  Venantius  Fortunatus,  or  the  seventh  century  hymn  Factor 
or  bis  angelorum}* 

Whatever  the  intentions  of  the  poet  may  have  been,  Christ  I, 
in  its  symmetrical  grouping  of  the  smaller  divisions  according  to 
the  manuscript  evidence,  does  give  the  appearance  of  a  hymnic 
composition.    The  structure  of  the  poem,  in  this  larger  arrange- 

^^  Antiphonaire  du  Hartker,  in  Paleographie  Musicale,  ser.  II.  i.  209-215. 
The  editor,  Dom  Mocquereau,  assigns  it  to  the  late  tenth  century.  It  is- 
the  St.  Gall  MS.  390-391,  and  is  there  reproduced  in  facsimile. 

"Mone,  Lateinische  Hyw^nen  des  Mittelalters,  i.  131,  438. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  21 

merit  of  the  paraphrases,  gains  thereby  a  closer  unity  which  might 
appropriately  be  termed  the  *'hymnic  unity"  of  Christ  I. 

If  the  larger  construction  of  Christ  I  is  taken  as  presenting  the 
appearance  of  a  Church  hymn,  or,  in  other  words,  if  the  "hymnic 
unity"  of  the  poem  is  accepted,  a  new  light  is  thrown  upon  the 
Passus  and  upon  the  closing  section  of  the  poem.  For,  in  this 
hymnic  structure,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  find  a  natural 
place.  As  regards  the  Passtis  in  particular,  it  will  be  seen  to 
differ  from  the  other  divisions  in  the  poem  in  the  nature  of  its 
material  as  well  as  in  the  treatment  thereof.  The  material  is 
not  taken  from  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent,  and  the  con- 
struction of  the  whole  division  is  unlike  that  of  the  other  para- 
phrases. It  is  true,  a  different  treatment  is  required  by  the  very 
material  which  the  Passus  offers,  yet  this  very  fact  of  such  an 
unaccustomed  theme  in  the  midst  of  the  O-paraphrases  would 
seem  to  confirm  the  theory  that  the  whole  division  constituting 
the  dialogue  is  by  a  later  hand.  Professor  J.  J.  Conybeare,  who 
was  the  first  to  note  the  dramatic  character  of  the  Passus,  re- 
marked in  his  Anglo-Saxon  lectures  at  Oxford :  ^** 

It  will  be  readily  agreed  that  this  subject,  from  its  sacred 
and  mysterious  nature,  is  ill  adapted  to  the  purposes  of 
poetry.  The  general  absence  of  taste  and  refinement  which 
characterized  the  age  in  which  the  poem  was  originally 
written,  may  fairly  be  pleaded  in  defense  of  its  author.  *  *  * 

If  the  subject  matter  of  the  Passus  is  really  ill  adapted  to  the 
purposes  of  poetry,  the  theory  that  Cynewulf  did  not  include  it 
in  the  original  draft  of  his  poetical  expansions  of  the  Advent  O's 
is  again  confirmed.  As  it  stands  in  the  poem  transmitted  to  us 
in  the  West-Saxon  eleventh  century  manuscript,  the  Passus  cer- 
tainly mars  the  symmetrical  proportions  otherwise  maintained 
in  the  grouping  of  the  smaller  divisions  of  Christ  I. 

The  last  portion  of  the  poem,  lines  416-439,  can  be  accepted 
as  a  later  addition  to  the  original  plan  of  the  poet  even  more  easily 
than  the  Passus.  It  comes  after  tlie  Doxology  which  should 
naturally  form  the  conclusion  of  Christ  I,  It  will  furthermore 
be  seen  in  the  next  chapter  of  this  study  that  the  source  of  this 
concluding  division,  the  Antiphon  O  admirihle  commerdum,  is 
removed  in  the  Divine  Office  of  the  Church  by  one  week  from 

^*^  Illustrations  of  Anglo-Saxon  Poetry  (1826),  201. — edited  by  his 
brother,  W.  D.  Conybeare,  and  quoted  in  Cook,  96. 


22  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

the  source  of  the  last  division  preceding  the  Doxology.  Yet, 
though  from  its  pecuHar  position  in  the  poem  as  such,  as  well 
as  in  the  hymnic  outline  presented  by  the  manuscript  divisions, 
this  portion  of  Christ  I  appears  to  be  a  later  addition,  the  addition 
itself  need  not  necessarily  come  from  a  later  writer,  because  it  is 
an  addition  and  not,  like  the  Passus,  an  insertion. 

If  we  regard  the  Passus  as  an  interpolation  by  a  later  writer, 
and  the  last  division  as  at  least  a  later  addition  by  Cynewulf  him- 
self, Christ  I  appears  in  a  new  beauty  which  reflects  the  beauty 
of  the  Divine  Office  itself  with  its  Hymns  and  rhythmical  Anti- 
phons.  But  above  all,  the  poem  as  a  whole  receives  a  better  form 
of  construction  than  scholars  have  been  inclined  to  grant.  The 
charge  that  Cynewulf  neglects  the  architectonics  of  his  poetry  can 
then  hardly  be  directed  to  the  poem  of  Christ  I  in  its  larger 
construction. 

2.  The  Sources  of  the  Twelve  Divisions 
The  divisions  made  in  the  poem  of  Christ  I,  as  manifested  in 
the  manuscript,  were  seen  to  have  retained  their  significance  even 
after  a  more  detailed  division  of  the  text,  as  demanded  by  a 
knowledge  of  the  sources,  was  reached.  The  groups  of  smaller 
divisions  thus  formed  lend  symmetry  and  a  certain  unity  of 
construction,  which  I  have  called  the  hymnic  unity,  to  the  poem 
of  the  Advent  as  a  whole. 

Yet  the  relation  of  the  smaller  divisions  as  such  to  the  larger 
outline  of  Christ  I  must  still  be  ascertained.  Wherefore  it  is 
necessary,  in  the  following  discussion,  to  disregard  for  the  mo- 
ment the  possible  influence  of  the  manuscript  divisions  on  the 
structural  plan  of  Part  I  of  the  Christ,  m  order  to  avoid  any 
confusion  that  may  arise  in  connection  with  the  successive  order 
in  which  the  individual  paraphrases  appear.  The  poet  has  been 
charged  with  having  selected  the  sources  and  consequently  the 
themes  for  his  paraphrases  with  an  absolute  lack  of  the  sense  of 
coherence;  he  is  said  to  have  thrown  them  together  at  random. 
Thus,  it  will  be  said,  even  if  Christ  I  presents  the  structural 
appearance  of  a  Church  hymn  by  the  grouping  together  in  the 
manuscript  of  the  smaller  divisions,  the  order  in  which  these 
themselves  stand  in  the  poem  is  dependent  upon  nothing  but 
chance.^' 


See  the  quotation  from  Smithson,  page  13  above. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  23 

The  sources  of  the  smaller  divisions  thus  necessarily  enter  into 
our  study  of  the  unity  of  construction  in  Christ  I,  for  they  form 
the  bases  for  the  various  sections  of  the  poem,  and  it  is  upon  their 
selection  by  the  poet  that  the  arrangement  of  material  is  de- 
pendent. Was  their  selection  arbitrary  ?  Or  was  the  poet  guided 
by  an  external  influence  in  choosing  the  subjects  for  his  succes- 
sive paraphrases  ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  will  determine 
whether  or  not  Christ  I  presents  a  definite  arrangement  of  ma- 
terial, and  whence  the  poet  derived  the  peculiar  order  in  which 
this  material  appears  in  his  poem. 

In  order  to  ascertain  Cynewulf's  method  of  selecting  his 
sources,  a  closer  examination  of  these  sources  as  forming  the 
bases  for  the  twelve  divisions  in  Christ  I  must  first  be  made, 
for  these  have  not  been  satisfactorily  determined  in  each  par- 
ticular. From  the  table  given  on  page  16  above  it  will  be  seen 
that  in  a  few  instances  the  source  for  the  respective  division  of 
the  poem  is  either  unknown  or  doubtful.  This  applies  especially 
to  the  Passus  and  to  Division  X.  In  other  divisions  the  accepted 
source  might  be  more  definitely  established,  or  the  unity  of 
theme  more  clearly  determined.  Where  the  basis  for  the  division 
admits  of  no  doubt,  and  the  poet  follows  closely  his  source,  there 
is  no  need  of  further  investigation,  since  the  interpolated  matter 
in  Christ  I  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  our  study,  unless 
it  bears  a  vital  relation  to  the  sources  themselves.  These  divisions, 
however,  will  be  indicated  in  their  regular  order,  so  that  a  com- 
plete account  of  the  sources  as  they  appear  in  the  poem  may 
be  had. 

Division  I :     Lines  1-17  ^* 

is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon  of  Advent : 

O  Rex  Gentium  et  desideratus  earum,  lapisque  angulaiis 
qui  facis  utraque  unum:  veni,  et  salva  hominem  quern  de 
limo  formasti. 

Division  II:   Lines  18-49 

is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon  of  Advent : 

"The  beginning  of  this  division  is  lost,  the  manuscript  of  the  Christ  in 
the  Exeter  Book  opening  on  folio  8'  with  the  word  Cyninge,  "to  the 
King." 


24  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

O  Clavis  I^avid,  et  sceptrum  domus  Israel;  qui  aperis,  et 
nemo  claudit ;  claudis,  et  nemo  aperit :  veni,  et  educ  vinctum 
de  domo  carceris,  sedentem  in  tenebris  et  umbra  mortis. 

The  unity  of  this  division  might  be  questioned,  since  a  great 
portion  of  it  has  no  obvious  relation  to  the  Antiphon  0  Clavis. 
There  are  clearly  two  parts  in  this  section  of  the  poem:  (a)  lines 
18-32;  (b)  lines  33-49.  Of  these  only  the  first  is  based  directly 
on  the  O  Clavis  Antiphon  (much  of  the  text  is  scarcely  legible 
in  the  manuscript),  while  the  second  part  develops  a  thought 
apparently  foreign  to  the  thought  conveyed  by  the  Antiphon. 
Still,  lines  33-49  are  connected  to  the  preceding  portion  by  the 
conjunction  forpon,  which  shows  that  what  follows  is  narrated 
in  consequence  of  the  thought  development  carried  out  in  lines 
18-32,  or  at  least  in  the  lines  immediately  preceding. 

Smithson  ^^  makes  the  "mention  of  the  saving  power  of  the 
Lord"  in  the  first  part  responsible  for  the  thoughts  developed  in 
the  second  part,  which,  is  said  to  portray  the  manner  of  the  sav- 
ing. Yet,  if  we  follow  the  reading  proposed  by  Professor  Bright 
in  line  30,^^  the  thought-connection  between  the  two  parts  becomes 
clearer  and  appears  less  strained.    He  interprets  the  words 

*     *     *     /?e  he  to  wuldre  forlet  (line  30^) 
as  meaning  "whom  he  hath  (denied)  shut  out  from  glory."    The 
particular  glory  implied  here  seems  to  be  that  of  Paradise}^  Such 
an  interpretation  would  agree  with  the  lines  immediately   fol- 
lowing, 

/?a  we  heanlice  hweorfan  sceoldan 

to  p\s  enge  lond,  e^le  bescyrede.  (lines  31,  32) 

The  full  import?  of  the  claudis,  et  nemo  aperit  is  thus  set  forth 
in  connection  with  the  banishment  of  the  human  race  from  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  which  entailed  the  loss  of  the  heavenly  heritage 
and  turned  man  as  an  exile  into  this  narrow  land  of  sufferings 
and  trials.    But  upon  this  sentence  of  exile  followed  at  once  the 


"  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic,  334  f . 

"See  Cook,  78. 

"In  the  Germanic  languages  the  word  wuldor  refers  to  the  glory  of 
"heaven."  It  is  possible  that  C5mewulf,  for  the  lack  of  a  suitable  word 
for  "paradise,"  employed  it  here  in  this  sense.  If,  however,  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  wuldor  cannot  be  accepted,  the  "shutting  out  from 
the  glory  of  heaven"  could  be  regarded  as  being  typefied  by  the  expulsion 
from  the  Garden  of  Eden. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  25 

promise  of  the  Redeemer  as  a  result  of  the  divine  mercy ,2°  where- 
fore the  poet  continues : 

FoTpon  secgan  mseg  se  Se  s6^  sprice^ 

pd£t  he  ahredde,  pa.  forhwyrfed  waes, 

frumcyn  fira.  (lines  33-35') 

Immediately  there  rises  before  the  mind  of  the  poet  the  picture 
of  that  wonderful  woman  mentioned  to  our  first  parents  before 
the  sentence  pronounced  over  them  and  their  offspring  was 
carried  out:  that  woman  who  was  to  crush  the  serpent's  head 
and  through  whom  the  promised  Redeemer  was  to  come.  Conse- 
quently, the  remaining  portion  of  this  division  describes  Mary, 
the  mother  of  the  Savior. 

Thus  the  two  parts  of  Division  II  become  one  in  the  poetical 
completion  of  the  theme  suggested  by  the  Antiphon,  which  glorifies 
the  Key  that  closed  eternal  life  to  mankind  after  the  transgression 
in  Paradise,  and  again  opened  it  in  the  Incarnation  and  subse- 
quent Redemption. 

Division  III :   Lines  50-70 
is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

O  Hierusalem,  civitas  Dei  summi :  leva  in  circuitu  oculos 
tuos,  et  vide  Dominum  tuum,  quia  jam  veniet  solvere  te  a 
vinculis. 

In  his  paraphrase  of  this  Antiphon  the  poet  intermingles  ref- 
erences to  the  city  of  Jerusalem  in  Palestine  and  to  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem. 

Division  IV :  Lines  71-103 

is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

O  Virgo  virginum,  quomodo  fiet  istud,  quia  nee  primam 
similem  visa  es  nee  habere  sequentem.  Filiae  Jerusalem,  quid 
me  admiramini?    Divinum  est  mysterium  hoc  quod  cernitis. 


***  Gen.  ili.  15.     The  interpretation  of  this  verse  as  carrying  a  promise  of 
the  Redeemer  was  universal  in  the  ancient  Church  even  as  it  is  today. 


26  THE  DEPENDENCE  0?   CHRIST   I. 

As  suggested  by  the  Antiphon,  the  passage  forms  a  dialogue 
between  the  daughters  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Virgin  Mary.^^ 

Division  V:     Lines  104-129 

is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

O  Oriens,  splendor  lucis  aeternae  et  sol  justitiae:  veni,  et 
illumina  sedentes  in  tenebris  et  umbra  mortis. 
After  the  address  and  petition  based  on  the  Antiphon,  there 
follows  an  expository  portion,  lines  119-129,  not  based  on  the 
text  of  the  Antiphon,  but  connected  with  it  in  thought  in  the 
following  manner :  what  we  have  asked  for  in  the  petition,  we 
now  believe  to  have  been  granted. 

Division  VI:   Lines  130-163 

is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

O  Emmanuel,  Rex  et  Legifer  noster^  expectatio  gentium  et 
salvator  earum :  veni  ad  salvandum  nos,  Domine  Deus  noster. 
In  the  second  half  of  this  division,  lines  148''-163,  the  motive 
drawn  from  the  Harrowing  of  Hell  is  introduced  by  placing  the 
petition  of  the  Antiphon  into  the  mouths  of  the  just  souls  in 
Limbo.  The  poet  arrives  at  this  motive  when,  in  line  145,  in 
adherence  to  the  common  interpretation  of  his  time,  he  extends 
the  thought  of  expectatio  gentium  to  the  grundas,  that  is,  to  those 
yearning  for  deliverance  from  the  prison  of  the  Limbo.  For  the 
possible  influence  of  the  hymn  Veni,  redemptor  gentium  in  Christ 
I  see  page  12  above. 

'^Cook  remarks  (p.  87)  that  line  90  "seems  inappropriate  to  the  con- 
text." Yet,  upon  closer  examination  this  does  not  appear  to  be  the  case. 
Lines  78-85  paraphrase  the  quia  nee  primam  siniilem,  visa  es,  nee  habere 
sequentem  of  the  Antiphon.  These  words  imply  a  comparison  between 
the  motherhood  of  Mary  and  that  of  the  rest  of  womankind.  Such  a 
comparison  is  expressed  in  lines  85''-87'' : 

♦    *    ♦     Swa  eal  manna  beam 

sorgum  sawa^  (conceive),  swa  eft  ripa^  (bear), — 

cenna^  to  cwealme.  (lines  85*'-87'') 

An  example  of  the  development  of  this  thought  can  be  found  in  the 
Fragmentum  De  Partu  Virginis  ascribed  to  St.  Ildephonse;  see  Migne, 
P.  L.,  96,  230;  cf.  also  Gen.  iii.  16. 

In  her  answer,  the  Virgin  Mary  alludes  to  this  comparison  made  by  the 
daughters  of  Salem,  asking  not  only 

Hwaet  is  ^eos  wundrung  pe  ge  wafia(?,  (line  89) 

but  also 

ond  geomrende  gehpum  msena^, 

sunu   Solimae  somod  his  dohtor?    (lines  90,   91) 
The   following  lines   then  explain  the   mystery  of   the  disparity  in  the 
motherhood  of  Mary  and  of  those  addressed. 


ON   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  27 

Division  VII:    Lines  164-213 

This  section  of  Christ  I  constitutes  what  scholars  call  a  Passus. 
It  is  a  dialogue  between  the  Virgin  Mary  and  her  spouse  St. 
Joseph,  and  is  not  based  on  an  Advent  Antiphon.  For  its  unique 
position  in  the  poem,  especially  in  the  scheme  or  plan  of  Christ  I, 
and  for  the  theory  of  regarding  these  lines  as  a  possible  inter- 
polation by  some  later  author  or  scribe,  see  page  21  above. 

No  direct  source  for  this  passage  has  been  discovered,  and  it 
is  very  probable  that  such  a  source  will  never  be  found.  How- 
ever, if  Cynewulf  is  the  originator  of  this  dialogue  between  Mary 
and  Joseph,  he  did  have  a  source  for  the  conception  of  it  in  the 
Gospel  extract  assigned  to  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity,  Matth.  i. 
18-21.  The  theme  of  this  Gospel  passage  is  reserved  in  the 
liturgy  of  the  Church  for  the  immediate  preparation  for  the  Birth 
of  Christ,  and  not  only  do  the  Gospel  and  the  Homilies  read  on 
the  Vigil  of  Christmas  treat  of  the  predicament  in  which  Joseph 
found  himself  with  regard  to  his  spotless  spouse,  but  the  Antiph- 
onary  echoes  the  same  thoughts  in  the  Office  for  that  day.^^ 

But,  unlike  the  Gospel  passage,  in  which  an  angel  appears  to 
Joseph  for  the  purpose  of  allaying  his  fears  and  instructing  him 
in  the  true  mystery,  Cynewulf  allows  the  Virgin  Mary  herself 
to  impart  this  revelation  to  her  troubled  spouse.  The  very  form 
of  the  dialogue  demands  this  treatment  by  the  poet. 

Cook  did  not  determine  any  Latin  original  as  the  basis  for 
this  division  of  Christ  I.  In  a  later  study,^^  however,  he  brings 
the  whole  passage  containing  the  dialogue  into  relation  with 
certain  homiletical  expansions,  four  of  which  are  found  in  the 
Greek  Fathers,  and  one  in  the  Latin.  These  homilies  are  by 
(Pseudo-)  Athanasius,  (Pseudo-)  Chrysostom,  (Pseudo-)  Proc- 
lus,  Germanus,  and  (Pseudo-)  Augustine,  and  contain  dialogues 
similar  in  character  and  content  to  the  dialogue  presented  by 
Cynewulf.     In  summing  up  the  result  of  his  study.  Cook  says : 

^  Thus,  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  (Paleographie  Musicale,  ser. 
II,  i.  7),  of  the  tenth  century,  one  of  the  Antiphons  for  the  Vigil  of 
Christmas  reads,  Cum  esset  desponsata  mater  iesu  maria  ioseph  ante 
quam  conuenirent  inuenta  est  in  utero  hahens,  quod  enim  in  ea  natum  est 
de  spiritu  sancto  est.  Another  Antiphon  (p.  43)  for  the  same  day  touches 
still  closer  the  problem  treated  in  our  dialogue,  Joseph  Uli  dauid  noli  timbre 
accipcre  muriam  coniugem  tuan\  quod  enim  in  ea  natum  est  de  spiritu 
sancto  est. 

^  "A  Remote  Analogue  to  the  Miracle  Play,"  in  the  Journal  of  Germanic 
Philology,  iv.   421-451. 


28  THIS  DEPENDENCE  OF  CHRIST   I. 

The  dialogue  in  Cynewulf  s  Christ,  which  had  been  looked 
upon  as  an  early  precursor  of  the  miracle  plays,  is  itself 
anticipated  by  dialogues  composed  by  certain  Greek  Fathers 
as  a  homiletical  feature,  and  are  due  to  a  tendency  to 
Hellenize  Jewish  history  which  may  antedate  the  time  of 
Christ,  and  which  is  strongly  marked  as  early  as  the  fourth 
century  of  our  era. 

In  a  subsequent  paper,^"*  Cook  proved  that  the  dramatic  ten- 
dency in  question  did  exist  in  the  fourth  century.  He  finds  in- 
vented addresses  in  a  sermon  of  Ephraem  Syrus  (died  373),  which 
he  quotes  in  its  Latin  translation.  Yet,  because  it  seems  doubtful 
whether  or  not  Ephraem  was  acquainted  with  Greek,  Cook  is 
willing  to  modify  his  previous  statement  that  "this  method  of 
animating  a  discourse  by  the  introduction  of  dramatic  elements 
is  undoubtedly  due  to  Hellenic  influence." 

Latin  originals  for  this  dialogue  in  Christ  I,  or  other  originals 
known  early  in  a  Latin  translation,  are  thus  seen  to  have  existed 
at  the  time  of  Cynewulf.  It  would  be  difficult  to  assume  that 
he  proceeded  to  compose  the  Passus  without  any  knowledge  of 
one  or  more  of  these  homilies,  or  at  least  of  a  source  in  which 
they  were  employed.  Such  a  knowledge  need  not  necessarily 
have  been  acquired  by  the  poet  outside  the  readings  of  the 
Divine  Office,  for  the  number  of  Lectionaries  and  Homiliaries 
preserved  from  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  is  too  small  to 
justify  the  inference  that  such  homilies  as  discovered  by  Cook 
were  not  then  in  use. 

Thus,  for  example,  in  the  HomiUary  of  Paul  the  Deacon,^^ 
composed  by  order  of  Charlemange,  two  homilies  are  assigned 
to  each  Sunday  and  the  Ember  days  of  Advent,  while  the  Christ- 
mas Office  has  as  many  as  eleven.  Of  the  twenty-eight  homilies 
which  the  Carolingian  Homiliary  lists  for  the  season  of  Advent 
including  Christmas  I>ay,  only  nine  are  still  in  use  at  the  present 
time.  No  doubt,  selections  were  made  from  this  large  number 
of  excerpts  from  the  Fathers,  so  that  not  all  the  homilies  indi- 
cated were  read  on  the  respective  days.  The  particular  selection 
must  necessarily  have  depended  largely  upon  the  books  or  codices 
in  possession  of  the  individual  monastery  or  cathedral  church 
at  the  time.    For  this  same  reason  St.  Benedict  leaves  the  choice 


**  "A  Dramatic  Tendency  in  the  Fathers,"  ibid.,  v.  62-4. 

**  Homiliarius  Pauli  Winfridi  Diaconi,  in  Migne,  P.  L-,  95,  1160-69. 


ON   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  29 

of  the  readings  in  the  Divine  Office  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Abbot,  though  he  has  not  neglected  to  lay  down  in  minute  details 
all  particulars  relating  to  the  recitation  of  the  Office.  In  his 
Rule  ^®  he  determines  the  number  of  Lessons  for  each  Nocturn, 
but  he  specifies  no  author  in  particular,  saying : 

Let  the  divinely  inspired  books,  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  be  read  at  the  Night-Office,  and  also  the  com- 
mentaries upon  them  written  by  the  most  renowned,  ortho- 
dox, and  Catholic  Fathers. 

These  rich  homiliaries  of  the  early  Church  consequently 
afforded  the  monks  and  ecclesiastics  of  those  days  a  wide  rang^ 
of  patristic  reading,  so  much  so  that  we  are  astonished  at  their 
extensive  knowledge  of  the  various  Church  writers.  The  possi- 
bility is  therefore  not  excluded  that  Cynewulf  had  a  knowledge 
of  one  or  all  of  the  five  homilies  indicated  by  Cook,  or  that  by 
his  time  a  compilation  of  these  had  existed  in  some  other  sermon 
or  writing  of  a  later  author,  which  itself  could  have  furnished 
the  poet  with  a  source  for  the  dialogue  in  Division  VII  of  Christ 
I.  If  the  whole  Passus  should  be  an  interpolation  of  a  later 
century  or  author,  the  question  of  a  possible  source  in  one  or 
more  of  these  homilies  remains  the  same  as  in  the  case  of 
Cynewulf's  authorship,  and  the  observations  made  here  will  find 
their  application  to  any  supposed  writer  of  the  dialogue  in 
Christ  I. 

While  the  direct  source  for  the  Passus  must  still  remain  in 
doubt,  it  is  plain  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  material 
therein  contained  is  in  essence  the  material  reserved  by  the 
Church  for  the  liturgical  service  of  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity. 
In  the  case  of  this  division  therefore  we  must,  for  the  present, 
be  content  with  the  proper  placing  of  the  subject  matter  into  its 
liturgical  setting  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  Whatever  the 
source  for  Cynewulf's  poetical  expansion  of  this  subject  matter 
may  have  been,  it  is  most  likely  that  it  likewise  belonged  to  the 
celebration  of  the  Vigil  of  Christmas. 

Division  VIII :  Lines  214-274 
is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

O  Rex  Pacifice,  tu  ante  saecula  nate :  per  auream  egredere 

*•  Chapter  ix.  ed.  by  Dom  Oswald  Hunter-BIair,  1906,  p.  59. 


30  THE   DEPENDE:NCE   of   CHRIST   I. 

portam,   redemptos    tiios    visita,    et    eos    illuc    revoca   unde 
ruerunt  per  culpam. 

After  the  address  which  follows  that  of  the  Antiphon,  the  poet 
interpolates  a  lengthy  expository  development  of  the  theme  sug- 
gested by  the  words  tu  ante  saecida  note,  lines  224-243'.  This 
portion  introduces  the  story  of  the  creation  of  light,^^  which  is 
the  first  creative  act  of  God  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  By  bringing 
the  idea  conveyed  by  the  tu  ante  saecula  nate  into  comparison 
with  the  first  external  creative  work  the  poet  emphasizes  the  co- 
existence of  the  Son  with  the  Father  from  all  eternity. 

In  a  note  to  lines  239-240,  Cook  ^s  thinks  that  these  two  lines 
may  possibly  have  some  reference  to  the  Great  Antiphon  of 
Advent,  O  Sapientia;  but  he  warns  that  the  connection,  if  it 
exists,  is  very  slight,  and  is  suggested  only  by  the  existence  of 
these  Antiphons  in  one  series.  He  adds :  '*It  is  just  possible 
that  the  section  based  upon  this  Antiphon  is  in  the  part  de- 
stroyed." Yet,  in  the  list  of  sources  attached  to  the  beginning  of 
his  Notes,^^  Cook  definitely  assigns  the  Antiphon  O  Sapientia 
to  the  ninth  place. 

The  lines  of  the  Christ  referred  to  are : 
pn  eart  seo  Snyttro  pt  /?as  sTdan  gesceaft, 
mid  p\  Waldende,  worhtes  ealle. 

The  Antiphon  in  question  is : 

O  Sapientia,  quae  ex  ore  altissimi  prodiisti,  attingens  a 
fine  usque  ad  finem,  fortiter  suaviterque  disponens  omnia: 
veni  ad  docendum  nos  viam  prudentiae. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  slight  connection  between 
the  words  of  the  O  Sapientia  and  lines  239-240  of  the  Christ. 
But  it  would  seem  unfair  to  assume  that  Cynewulf  intended  these 
two  lines  as  a  reproduction  of  the  Antiphon  in  question.  The  O 
Sapientia  is  the  first  of  the  series  of  Advent  Antiphons  known 
as  the  Great  O's.  The  position  it  thus  takes  among  the  Greater 
Antiphons  would  seem  to  require  a  treatment  more  adequate  and 
a  position  more  prominent  than  lines  239-240  can  give  it.  Fur- 
thermore, the  fact  that  it  is  the  first  of  the  O-Antiphons  creates 
a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  its  appearance  in  the  lost  portion 

="  Gen.  i.  1-5. 

^  P.  101. 

'"  P.  71 ;  cf .  pp.  72  f. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  31 

of  the  poem,  that  is,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christ.  Indeed, 
what  Cook  declares  to  be  "just  possible"  seems  to  be  demanded 
by  the  importance  of  the  Antiphon.  A  further  discussion  of 
this  will  follow  below.^** 

Lines  239-240,  in  their  context,  seem  rather  to  be  an  epitomized 
recount  of  the  passage  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,^^  in  which  the 
excellence  of  Wisdom  is  set  forth.  We  note  these  salient  pas- 
sages ; 

Dominus  possedit  me  in  initio  viarum  suarum,  antequam 
quidquam  faceret  a  principio.  *  *  ♦  Ab  aeterno  ordinata 
sum,  et  ex  antiquis  antequam  terra  fieret  *  *  *  quando 
appendebat  fundamenta  terrae  cum  eo  eram  cuncta  com- 
ponens. 

This  passage  may  in  fact  have  suggested  to  the  poet  his  story 
of  the  creation  of  light,  in  the  words  antequam  quidquam  faceret 
and  antequam  terra  fieret,  for,  as  has  been  observed,  the  creation 
of  light  was  the  beginning  of  the  visible  creation.  Indeed,  the 
poet  seems  to  allude  expressly  to  these  words  of  Proverbs  in 
line  238, 

2er/?on  oht  />isses  aefre  gewurde. 

The  phrase  cum  eo  eram  cuncta  componens  is  reproduced  al- 
most verbally  in  lines  239-240 : 

pu  eart  seo  Snyttro  /?e  p3.s  sidan  gesceaft, 
mid  pi  Waldende,  worhtes  ealle. 

The  reference  taken  here  from  the  Book  of  Proverbs  has  been 
made  quite  familiar  by  its  frequent  use  in  the  Office  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  and  in  this  use  it  must  have  been  so  well  known  to 
Cynewulf  as  to  suggest  itself  at  once  in  the  development  of  the 
theme  connected  with  the  eternal  co-existence  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.  Though  it  must  be  considered  as  only  a  subsidiary 
influence  in  this  division  of  Christ  I,  it  makes  unnecessary  our 
recourse  to  the  Great  Antiphon  O  Sapientia  as  a  basis  for  lines 
239-240.  Thus  the  division  based  on  the  O  Rex  Pacifice  does 
not  a'ppear  to  admit  any  other  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  as  a 
source  for  its  lines. 

'"  See  pages  48  ff.  below. 
"  Prov.  viii.  22-31. 


32  THE  DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 


Division   IX:    Lines  275-347 


is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon : 

0  mundi  Domina,  regio  ex  semine  orta:  ex  tuo  jam  Chris- 
tus  processit  alvo,  tanquam  sponsus  de  thalamo;  hie  jacet  in 
praesepio  qui  et  sidera  regit. 

Much  of  the  Antiphon  is  not  utilized  by  the  poet  in  this  section. 
In  the  opening  lines  of  the  division,  lines  275-^94',  he  dwells  at 
length  on  the  appellation  domina,  with  additional  thoughts  on 
the  title  sponsa  (in  lines  280,  292)  probably  suggested  by  the 
Antiphon. 

The  middle  portion  of  the  Antiphon  does  not  seem  to  be  rep- 
resented in  this  division  of  Christ  I,  except  that  it  may  have  led 
the  poet  to  insert  his  long  exposition  dealing  with  the  Vision  of 
the  prophet  Ezekiel  in  lines  301-334. 

After  this  digression,  however,  he  returns  to  the  thoughts  of 
the  Antiphon  in  his  final  petition  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  lines  335- 
347,  when  in  answer  to  the  request 

Iowa  us  nu  />a  are  pe  se  engel  pG, 

Codes  spelboda,  Gabriel,  brohte. 

Huru  p3£S  bidda^  burgsittende 

p3et  du  p3.  fro  f re  f oleum  cy^e, 

pmre  sylfre  Sunu.  (lines  335-339') 

he  announces  joyfully  that 

nu  we  on  pxt  beam  foran  breostum  staria^,  (line  431), 

in    agreement   with   the   words   of    the    Antiphon,    hie   jacet    in 
praesepio. 

In  the  concluding  lines  of  the  petition  the  poet  asks  for  admis- 
sion into  the  Father's  kingdom — in  Feeder  rice — which  points  to 
the  last  phrase  of  the  Antiphon,  qui  et  sidera  regit. 

In  an  article  on  The  Great  Antiphons:  Heralds  of  Christmas,^^ 
Herbert  Thurston  remarks, 

1  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  (the  Antiphon  0  Gabriel) 
has  suggested  in  part  the  passage  in  the  Christ  about  the  wall 
and  gate,  lines  307,  seq. 

The  Antiphon  suggested  by  Thurston  is  the  following: 

O  Gabriel,  nuntius  coelorum,  qui  januis  clausis  ad  me 
intrasti,  et  Verbum  nuntiasti :  Concipies  et  paries,  Emmanuel 
vocabitur. 


^In  The  Month  (London),  vol.  106,  p.  620,  note.     (December,  1905.) 


ON    THE   ANTIPHGNARY.  33 

However,  since  the  whole  passage  following  line  307  unmis- 
takabljPrefers  to  the  wonderful  entrance  beheld  in  miraculous 
vision  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  it  would  rather  seem  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  phrase  per  auream  egredere  portam  of  the  An- 
tiphon  O  Rex  Pacifice.  In  fact,  when  dealing  with  that  Antiphon 
in  the  preceding  division,  the  poet  alludes  to  the  "golden  gate" 
in  lines  251-253.  But  he  reserves  this  subject  for  ampler  treat- 
ment in  the  present  division. 

The  Antiphon  O  Gabriel  can  hardly  be  interpreted  as  a  ref- 
erence to  this  vision  of  Ezekiel,  for  with  no  stretch  of  the 
imagination  can  the  words  qui  januis  clausis  ad  me  intrasti,  spoken 
of  the  angel  Gabriel,  be  made  to  apply  to  the  virginal  birth  of 
Christ  and  the  perpetual  virginity  of  His  mother  as  implied  in 
the  "golden  gate."  The  archangel  Gabriel  is  twice  mentioned  in 
Christ  I,  in  line  201,  and  in  line  336.  Both  of  these  instances 
refer  to  the  message  brought  by  the  archangel  into  the  humble 
chamber  of  the  Virgin  in  Nazareth,  as  described  in  the  Antiphon 
O  Gabriel.  Wherefore  these  two  lines  might  be  brought  in  con- 
nection with  the  Antiphon  O  Gabriel  more  readily  than  lines  307 
flF.  of  our  division. 

Still,  as  a  basis  for  any  section  in  Christ  I,  the  O  Gabriel 
Antiphon  must  drop  out  of  consideration.  With  Cook  ^^  we  may 
relegate  this  Antiphon  to  the  lost  portion  of  the  Christ. 

Division  X:    Lines  348-377. 

No  investigator  has  been  able  to  ascertain  with  any  degree  of 
certainty  the  basis  for  this  portion  of  Christ  I.     As  a  possible 
basis  for  the  lines  of  this  division  Cook  gives  the  Great  Antiphon : 
O  Radix  Jesse,  qui  stas  in  signum  populorum,  super  quern 
continebunt  reges  os  suum,  quem  gentes  deprecabuntur :  veni 
ad  liberandum  nos,  jam  noli  tardare. 
Yet,  he  admits  ^*  that  a  great  part  of  this  section  has  no  obvious 
relation  to  this  Antiphon,  explaining  that  there  may  be  "contam- 
ination" with  the  next,  as  well  as  with  some  of  the  preceding 
portion. 

Upon  a  close  examination  it  will  be  seen  that  only  two  phrases 
of  the  Antiphon  O  Radix  find  an  echo  in  lines  348-377,  the  veni 
ad  liberandum  nos,  and  the  jam  noli  tardare.    Of  this  and  of  the 

^  P.  73. 
"Cook,  p.  107. 


34  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

exclusion  of  the  0  Radix  Antiphon  as  a  basis  for  this  division, 
the  following  discussion  will  treat  more  fully. 

In  offering  an  emendation  to  Cook's  theory,  Alfred  A.  May  ^^ 
advances  the  belief  that  Cynewulf,  in  composing  the  passage 
constituting  Division  X,  had  in  mind  the  Great  Antiphon  O 
Sapientia,  but  that  he  did  not  use  the  text  of  this  Antiphon  itself 
for  the  basis  of  his  lines,  being  influenced  by  the  passage  in 
Ecclus.  xxiv.  5,  primogenta  ante  omnem  creaturam,  upon  which 
the  0  Sapientia  is  partly  based.  In  this  opinion,  Cynewulf  took 
not  the  Antiphon  but  its  Scriptural  source  as  the  basis  for  his 
poetic  comment.  Another  argument  for  accepting  the  Antiphon 
0  Sapientia  as  at  least  the  indirect  basis  for  this  division,  May 
finds  in  the  two  expressions  ne  lata  to  lange  of  line  373  of  the 
Christ,  and  pcet  pu  us  ahredde  of  line  374.  He  explains  in  the 
following  manner :  ^® 

This  passage  (lines  372''-374')  resembles,  as  has  already 
been  mentioned,  the  vem  ad  liherandum  nos,  jam,  noli  tardare, 
which  is  the  petition  in  0  Radix.  But  at  the  head  of  the 
list  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  in  the  Sarum  Use  (and  hence 
immediately  preceding  O  Sapientia,  the  first  of  the  group), 
appears  this  versicle  and  response : 

Festina,  ne  tardaveris,  D amine:  et  libera  populum  tuum. 

Veni,  domine,  et  noli  tardare:  relaxa  facinora  plebi  tuae. 
This  versicle,  the  gloss  states,  is  always  sung  before  the 
antiphon  ("ad  initium  hujus  antiphonae").  The  association 
in  Cynewulf's  mind  of  the  versicle  with  O  Sapientia  is  thus 
natural  and  almost  inevitable;  and  the  similarity  between 
his  words  and  the  words  of  the  versicle  is  quite  evident. 

Before  we  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  this  emendation  pre- 
sented by  May,  it  may  be  said  that,  if  his  conclusions  are  accepted, 
they  shed  considerable  light  upon  the  lost  portion  of  the  poem. 
For,  if  Cynewulf  had  in  mind  the  Antiphon  O  Sapientia  but  re- 
fused to  employ  it  as  the  direct  basis  for  this  section  of  his  poem, 
turning  instead  on  the  one  hand  to  the  Biblical  source  of  the 
Antiphon  itself,  and  on  the  other  to  the  liturgical  matter  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  O's  in  the  Antiphonary,  his  procedure  can  be 
explained  only  by  the  fact  that  he  had  already  made  use  of  the 
O  Sapientia  in  another  portion  of  the  poem.    That  portion,  again, 

""A  Source  for  Christ,  11,  348-377,"  in  Modern  Language  Notes,  xxiv. 
158  f. 
'^Ihid.  159. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  35 

must  be  the  one  lost  from  the  manuscript,  for  it  was  seen  that 
lines  239-240  can  hardly  be  accepted  as  forming  the  paraphrase 
of  this  Antiphon.  Furthermore,  granting  that  the  O  Sapientia 
stood  at  the  beginning  of  Christ  I,  and  that  this  last  division  pre- 
ceding the  Doxology  is  reminiscent  of  the  same  Antiphon,  the 
whole  of  Part  I  of  the  Christ  is  knit  more  firmly  together  into 
one  complete  unit. 

Still,  the  emendations  thus  offered  to  the  theory  of  Cook  seem 
to  drive  us  from  Scylla  merely  to  Charybdis.  For  if  much  of 
Division  X  has  no  obvious  relation  to  the  Antiphon  0  Radix,  the 
same  must  be  said  of  its  direct,  and  in  a  lesser  degree  of  its 
indirect,  relation  to  the  O  Sapientia.  Thus  we  are  not  brought 
nearer  to  a  probable  source  for  the  whole  of  Division  X. 

Indeed,  the  aptness  of  the  emendations  offered  by  May  is 
doubtful.  These  refer  to  the  two  sections  in  Division  X,  to  the 
address  (lines  348-358")  and  to  the  petition  (lines  358''-377). 

If  the  content  of  the  address  is  compared  with  the  suggestions 
made  by  May,  his  observations  indeed  carry  some  weight.  For 
this  portion  does  glorify  the  co-eternity  of  the  Son  with  the 
Father,  and  might  have  been  suggested  by  the  words  primogenita 
ante  omnem  creaturam  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  5).  But  to  infer  that 
Cynewulf  looked  at  the  text  of  the  O  Sapientia  in  the  Antiphon- 
ary,  in  order  to  be  reminded  of  the  verse  in  Ecclesiasticus,  is 
straining  the  situation  just  a  little.  While  it  may  be  futile  to 
deny  the  poet  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  Biblical  passage  upon 
which  the  respective  Antiphons  were  based,^^  no  other  instance 
in  Christ  I  reveals  a  conscious  turning  on  his  part  to  these  sources, 
for  poetic  comment  on  the  Antiphons  themselves. 

The  suggestion  of  May  in  relation  to  the  words  ne  lata  to  lange 
and  pcet  pu  us  dhredde  of  the  petition  appears  even  less  happy 
than  his  first  emendation.  For  it  is  not  necessary  to  turn  to  the 
versicle  preceding  the  Greater  Antiphons  in  the  Antiphonary  in 
order  to  find  expressions  equivalent  to  the  words  in  the  Christ. 
Such  phrases,  as  contained  in  the  versicle  referred  to,  are  of  com- 
mon occurrence  in  the  Advent  Office.  They  were  also  incor- 
porated into  the  Antiphons.    For  instance,  in  the  Antiphonary  of 

^'  Apparently  the  custom  of  indicating  the  Scriptural  sources  after  the 
text  of  the  O-Antiphons  is  of  quite  recent  date.  An  example  may  be 
found  in  the  Paris  Breviary  of  1736 :  cf.  Breviarium  Parisiense,  anno  1736, 
pars  hiemalis,  p.  207  f. 


36  THE  de;pendence  of  christ  i. 

Hartker,^^  one  of  the  Antiphons  used  on  the  Monday  of  the  last 
week  in  Advent  is :  Convertere  Domine  aliquantulum  et  ne  tardes 
venire  ad  servos  tuos.  Another  for  the  Tuesday  of  the  last  week 
is :  ^®  Veni  domine  et  noli  tardare,  relaxa  facinora  plebis  tuae 
israhel.  In  the  same  Antiphonary,**'  the  Antiphon  appended  to 
the  Hst  of  Great  O's,  and  thus  classed  in  importance  with  the 
Greater  Antiphons  themselves,  is :  Qui  venturus  est  veniet  et  non 
tardoMt;  jam  non  erit  timor  in  finibus  nostris. 

Likewise  do  we  find  the  thought  for  pcet  pu  us  dhredde  in  more 
than  one  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  themselves.  Thus,  apart  from 
the  O  Radix  which  was  considered  as  a  possible  basis  for  Division 
X,  the  O  Adonai  has  the  petition :  veni  ad  redimendum  nos;  and 
the  O  Emmanuel,  veni  ad  salvandum  nos. 

But  if  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  versicle  preceding  the 
Greater  Antiphons  in  the  Sarum  Use  for  a  connection  of  Division 
X  with  the  Antiphon  O  Sapientia,  the  argument  does  not  appear 
well  chosen.  For  the  statement  of  the  "gloss"  is,  I  fear,  not 
rightly  interpreted  when  the  versicle  and  response  are  made  to 
precede  in  actual  Church  use  the  O  Sapientia  alone.  It  is  plain 
from  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  for  instance,  that  the  versicle 
in  question,  together  with  its  response,  was  used  on  each  day  of 
the  last  week  before  the  Nativity,  and  thus  preceded  each  of  the 
Greater  Antiphons.*^  The  constant  use  of  this  versicle  in  the 
last  week  of  Advent,  therefore,  brings  it  into  the  same  relation 
with  each  of  the  O-Antiphons,  and  renders  the  argument  deduced 
from  it  doubtful. 

To  recapitulate:  the  words  veni  ad  liberandum  nos,  and  jam 
noli  tardare,  being  the  only  source  for  Division  X  offered  by  the 
Antiphon  O  Radix,  are  in  themselves  not  sufficient  evidence  for 
the  dependence  of  the  poet  upon  this  Antiphon,  for  they  are 
found  scattered  throughout  the  Advent  Office.  For  the  same 
reason,  the  somewhat  far-fetched  recourse  to  the  response  and 
versicle  preceding  the  Greater  Antiphons  in  the  Sarum  Use 
appears  to  exclude  any  connection  of  Division  X  with  the  Anti- 
phon O  Sapientia.  In  like  manner,  the  Scriptural  source  of  the 
O  Sapientia,  Ecclus.  xxiv.  5,  though  proper  in  its  application  to 
the  address  of  this  division,  constitutes  a  doubtful  source  for  the 


^  P.  38. 
'"  P.  39. 
*'  P.  41. 

"  P.  34. — It  is  not  an  ordinary  response,  but  what  is  termed  a  Respon- 
sorium  breve,  sung  with  "Gloria  Patri,"  etc. 


ON    THE    ANTIPHONARY.  2(1 

poet,  since  the  forced  relation  implied  in  this  suggestion  causes  the 
argument  derived  from  it  to  appear  strained  and  in  contradiction 
to  the  recognized  working  methods  of  Cynewulf . 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  the  investigations  made  by  both 
Cook  and  May  have  given  results  too  vague  and  indefinite  to 
establish  a  source  for  the  whole  of  Division  X  of  Christ  I.  The 
various  suggestions  offered  show  in  themselves  that  it  is  difficult 
to  determine  such  a  source.  Further  attempts  at  a  proper  in- 
terpretation of  this  section  of  the  poem  will,  therefore,  be  wel- 
come. For  our  purpose  it  is  necessary  that  a  more  definite  source 
be  established,  and  if  this  task  is  essayed  in  the  following  pages, 
it  is  with  the  hope  that  future  investigators  may  improve  and 
correct  the  interpretation  here  given. 

Since  the  source  for  Division  X  is  not  clear,  it  might  be 
thought  that  the  lines  comprising  it  (lines  348-377)  are  after  all 
not  intended  as  a  separate  division  of  the  poem.  But  it  is  almost 
certain  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  an  independent  portion  of 
Christ  I.  For,  like  the  other  divisions,  it  begins  with  eala;  like 
the  others,  it  presents  an  individual  paraphrase,  being  addressed 
to  Christ,  while  the  preceding  portion  was  addressed  to  Mary 
and  the  following  lines  refer  to  the  Holy  Trinity.  It  has  the  same 
structure  to  which  we  have  been  accustomed  in  the  preceding 
paraphrases,  being  complete  in  its  address  and  petition.  All  this 
would  point  to  the  use  of  an  O-Antiphon  as  a  basis  for  this 
section,  even  as  the  similarly  constructed  paraphrases  of  the 
other  divisions  are  based  on  one  or  the  other  of  the  Greater 
Antiphons. 

If  the  O  Radix  and  the  O  Sapientia  are  excluded  as  probable 
sources  for  Division  X,  and  none  of  the  other  known  Greater 
Antiphons  bears  any  trace  of  connection  with  it,  the  inference 
lies  near  that  the  poet  employed  in  this  portion  of  Christ  I  an 
O-Antiphon  unknown  to  us  at  the  present  time.  An  Advent 
Antiphon  of  this  kind  may  still  be  discovered;  yet,  with  the 
existing  knowledge  of  ancient  Antiphonaries  and  Church  books 
of  every  description,  and  with  the  diligent  search  made  by  vari- 
ous scholars  and  investigators,  such  a  discovery  is  very  problemat- 
ical  and  indeed  unlikely.*^ 

"  Dr.  Karl  Young  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  in  a  letter  to  the 
writer  dated  December  6,  1920,  declared  that,  during  his  sojourn  in  Euro- 
pean libraries,  he  had  paid  considerable  attention  to  the  "O"  Antiphons 
in  liturgical  manuscripts,  expecting  to  find  additional  "O's"  in  them.  But 
he  does  not  recall  having  found  any  that  were  not  known  to  Professor 
Cook  and  other  investigators. 


38  THE  DEPENDENCE  01?  CHRIST  I. 

In  default  of  any  knowledge  pertaining  to  Greater  Antiphons 
hitherto  unknown  to  scholars  in  the  Christ,  another  suggestion 
in  explanation  of  Division  X  would  seem  appropriate.  The  sug- 
gestion is  this,  that  the  lines  constituting  this  division  be  con- 
sidered as  the  poet's  own  final  "O."  The  whole  section  comes  as 
a  sort  of  climax  to  a  finished  work,  the  petition  being  marked 
by  an  intensity  of  feeling  and  a  personal  note  seldom,  if  ever, 
equalled  in  any  of  the  preceding  divisions  of  Christ  I.  It  would 
seem  but  natural  that  Cynewulf,  after  having  paraphrased  the 
last  of  the  Greater  Antiphons,  should  lay  this  personal  tribute 
at  the  feet  of  Him  whose  advent  he  had  so  eloquently  glorified 
and  so  earnestly  implored  in  his  immortal  verse.  And  again,  in 
relation  to  the  contents  of  his  own  OAparaphrase,  what  would  be 
more  natural  than  that  he  should  revert  to  his  favorite  theme 
of  the  co-eternity  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  and  reiterate  in 
the  petition  his  own  intense  longing  for  deliverance  from  per- 
sonal guilt  and  for  the  grace  of  converting  his  will  to  the  ways 
of  God?  What  an  apt  refrain  all  this  presents  to  the  poet's  song 
on  the  Advent  of  Christ  the  Redeemer ! 

In  confirmation  of  this  theory  we  might  point  also  to  the 
symmetry  which  Cynewulf  maintained  in  the  structural  outline 
of  his  Christ  I.  It  was  seen  *^  that  he  places  three  O-Antiphons 
in  each  of  his  larger  divisions  of  the  poem.  Since  the  last  of 
these  contained  only  the  O  Rex  Pacifice  and  the  O  mundi  Domina, 
and  the  complete  set  of  Greater  Antiphons  had  been  employed 
before,**  the  need  of  an  additional  "O"  was  felt  for  the  sake  of 
maintaining  the  symmetrical  proportions  of  the  poem  as  a  whole, 
and  consequently  the  poet  proceeded  to  compose  one  of  his  own 
as  the  final  paraphrase  of  O's  in  this  last  larger  division  of  Christ 
I,  in  the  last  group  or  "stanza"  of  O's. 

But  the  probable  source  or  sources  for  Division  X  are  still 
to  be  ascertained.  Whence  did  the  poet  derive  the  material  for 
his  own  final  O-paraphrase?  The  contents  of  this  portion  of 
Christ  I  were  seen  to  be  largely  a  repetition  of  themes  already 

*^  See  page  17  above. 

"Of  the  three  Greater  Antiphons  (O  Sapientia,  O  Adonai,  O  Radix) 
not  treated  in  the  preceding  nine  divisions  of  Christ  J,  two  were  seen  to 
be  inappropriate  as  sources  for  the  present  division,  and  the  third  (O 
Adonai)  cannot  even  enter  the  list  of  probable  sources  in  this  portion  of 
the  poem.  In  the  following  section  of  this  chapter  the  place  of  these 
three  Antiphons  in  the  Christ  will  be  discussed. 


ON   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  39 

treated.  In  the  address  (lines  348-358*)  the  principal  theme  is 
the  co-existence  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  from  all  eternity,  his 
eternal  generation  from  the  Father;  while  in  the  petition  (lines 
358''-377)  the  poet  asks  for  deliverance  from  the  temptations  of 
sin.  Still  the  thoughts  developed  here  show  these  themes  in  a 
different  light  than  heretofore  in  the  poem.  We  are  given  new 
aspects  of  the  poet's  favorite  subjects. 

In  his  treatment  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  the  poet 
goes  a  step  farther  than  he  did  on  a  previous  occasion,  in  lines 
224-243'.*^  There  he  introduced  the  story  of  the  creation  of 
light,  the  first  creative  act  of  God  in  the  visible  world,  in  order 
to  emphasize  the  existence  of  the  Son  before  anything  had  been 
created.  In  this  division  of  the  poem  he  stresses  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  by  bringing  it  into  relation  with  the  first 
creative  act  of  God  in  the  spirit,  or  invisible,  world,  viz.,  the 
creation  of  the  angels  (lines  351-355).*®  He  furthermore  intro- 
duces the  co-existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  first  instance 
(lines  357''-358'')  in  which  the  Holy  Trinity  is  mentioned  in  the 
Christ,  and  the  Doxology  immediately  following  thus  receives 
here  its  first  intonation. 

An  analysis  of  the  petition  will  likewise  show  a  new  develop- 
ment in  oft-repeated  thoughts.  The  idea  of  the  Christian  soul 
being  a  captive  in  this  world,  is  not  a  new  one  in  Christ  I.  Yet 
here  (in  lines  358*'-377)  the  captivity  of  sin  in  which  the  soul 
is  held  is  more  fully  specified  as  (a)  the  concupiscence  of  the 
flesh,  in 

hu  we  sind  geswencte  /?urh  ure  sylfra  gewill.       (line  362) 
and 

*     *     *     we  fseh/)o  wi^  pec 

purh  firena  lust  gefremed  haebben.  (lines  368^  369) 

and  (b)  the  power  which  the  evil  spirits  exert  upon  us,  in 

Habba^  wraecmaecgas  wergan  gaestas 

******** 

gebunden  bealorapum.  (lines  363-365') 


*"  See  pages  30  f .  above. 

**  Scholars  have  found  the  frequent  repetitions  in  the  Christ  one  of  the 
marring  features  of  Cynewulf's  poetry  with  a  disastrous  effect  upon  the 
unity  and  orderly  development  of  plot  (cf.,  for  example,  Smithson.  The 
Old  English  Christian  Epic,  376).  In  many  cases,  as  in  the  present  one, 
a  closer  examination  might  reveal  new  phases  and  new  developments  in 
the  recurring  theme. 


46  THE  DEPENDENCE   0^   CHRIST   I. 

The  poet  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  the  threefold  temptation 
which  surrounds  the  soul  of  the  believer  in  this  life :  the  tempta- 
tion proceeding  from  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  though 
he  makes  particular  mention  of  the  two  last  only.  But  these 
reduce  men  to  a  miserable  plight  which  causes  the  poet  to  exclaim : 

hu  we  tealtriga^  tydran  mode, 

hwearfia^  heanllce.  (lines  371-372*) 

From  these  woes  he  asks  to  be  delivered,  in  order  to  be  able  to 
do  pa  sellan  ping  (line  376),  that  is,  God's  holy  will. 

While  the  material  presented  in  Division  X  is  thus  largely  a 
repetition  of  former  themes,  it  is  nevertheless  cast  into  a  new 
shape  by  the  new  and  distinct  treatment  which  it  receives.  The 
poet,  accordingly,  must  have  had  a  new  and  distinct  source  for 
the  thoughts  developed  in  this  division.  The  regular  channel 
for  supplying  his  material  the  poet  finds  throughout  the  former 
divisions  of  Christ  I  in  the  Divine  Office  of  the  Advent  season. 
Since  the  last  of  the  Advent  O's,  the  O  mundi  Domina,  was 
paraphrased  in  the  ninth  division,  this  tenth  division  would  prop- 
erly find  its  material  in  a  Christmas  theme,  being  the  final  division 
before  the  Doxology. 

And  such  we  indeed  find  to  be  the  case.  The  subject  of  the 
address  in  Division  X  is  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son.  This 
is  plainly  the  special  theme  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  for  the 
feast  of  the  Nativity,  or  Christmas  day  itself.  Where  three 
Masses  were  celebrated  on  that  day  the  first  of  these  was  com- 
monly interpreted  as  commemorating  the  eternal  birth  of  Christ 
from  the  Father,  whatever  applications  were  made  for  the  two 
remaining  Masses.  Wherefore,  the  thought  of  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  is  made  the  underlying  thought  of  the  Proper 
of  the  first  or  midnight-Mass.     The  Introit  is : 

Dominus  dixit  ad  me :  Filius  mens  es  tu,  ego  hodie,  genui  te. 
The  Gradual  of  the  same  Mass  is: 

Tecum  principium  in  die  virtutis  tuae  in  splendoribus  sanc- 
torum, ex  utero  ante  luciferum  genui  te. 

The  Verse  with  Alleluja  after  the  Gradual  repeats  the  very  words 
of  the  Introit,  while  the  Communion  anthem  repeats  the  words 
of  the  Gradual. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  41 

But  it  is  to  the  Preface  of  this  midnight-Mass  that  we  must 
turn  for  the  most  probable  source  of  Division  X.  We  quote  the 
Preface  for  the  Mass  In  Vigilia  Domini  in  Nocte,*'^  from  the 
Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great :  *^ 

Vere  dignum  et  justum  est,  aequum  et  salutare,  nos  tibi 
semper  et  ubique  gratias  agere,  Domine  sancte,  Pater  onini- 
potens,  aeterne  Deus,  Per  Christum  Dominum  nostrum. 
Cujus  divinae  Nativitatis  potentiam  ingenita  virtutis  tuae 
genuit  magnitude.  Quem  semper  FiHum,  et  ante  tempora 
aeterna  genitum,  quia  tibi  pleno  atque  perfecto  aeterni  Patris 
nomen  non  defuit,  praedicamus,  et  honore,  majestate  atque 
virtute  aequalem  tibi  cum  Spiritu  sancto  confitemur,  et  in 
trino  vocabulo  unicam  credimus  Majestalem.  Et  ideo  cum 
angeUs,  et  archangehs,  cum  thronis,  et  dominationibus,  cum- 
que  omni  militia  coelestis  exercitus,  hymnum  gloriae  tuae 
canimus  sine  fine  dicentes  : 

In  this  Preface  we  seem  to  have  the  suggestion  for  the  poet's 
own  O-paraphrase  in  Division  X.  It  is  devoted,  like  Cynewulf's 
address,  to  a  glorification  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son 
of  God.  It  speaks  of  his  divina  Nativitas  as  the  work  of  the 
Father's  ingenita  magnitude.  He  was  always  His  Son,  ante 
tempora  aeterna  genitus  (note  the  parallelism  with  tu  ante  saecula 
nate),  and  with  the  Father  he  is  equal  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  honor, 
majesty  and  power.  While  Cynewulf  expresses  the  thoughts 
conveyed  in  the  Preface  principally  by  instituting  a  comparison 
^between  the  generation  of  the  Son  and  the  creation  of  the  angels, 
the  influence  of  the  Preface  appears  to  be  clear.  Not  only  is 
the  theme  of  the  co-eternity  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  provided 
here,  but  the  third  Person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  expressly  mentioned  as  co-equal  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
and  the  angels  are  invited  to  join  in  our  praise  of  God. 

This  brings  us  to  the  real  connection  which  seems  to  exist  be- 

"  This  does  not  refer  to  what  we  now  call  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity  on 
December  24,  but  to  the  Holy  Night  itself.  The  Mass  here  is  plainly  the 
first  of  the  three  Masses  assigned  by  the  Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  to 
the  feast  of  Christmas. 

^^  Liber  Sacramento  rum  Si.  Gregorii  Magni,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  78,  30. 
This  Preface  is  also  found  among  the  "Praefationes  Antiquae  per  anni 
circulum,"  in  the  Liturgica  Latinorum  of  Jacobus  Pamelius,  Coloniae 
Agrippinae,  1571,  ii.  550.  Pamelius  attributes  it  to  the  Gelasian  Sacra- 
mentary, in  which  it  also  appears  for  the  midnight-Mass  of  the  Nativity. 
He  also  gives  it  among  the  Prefaces  of  the  Ambrosian  rite,  ibid.,  i.  441, 
where  it  is  assigned,  however,  to  the  fifth  Sunday  of  Advent. — cf.  also  M. 
Gerbert,  Monumenta  Veteris  Liturgiae  Alemmanicae,  i.  209. 


42  THIi  DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

tween  the  Preface  of  the  midnight-Mass  and  Division  X  of 
Christ  I.  The  Preface  is  always  the  prelude  to  the  Sanctus  or 
**Trisagion"  of  the  Mass.*^  In  like  manner  is  Division  X  immedi- 
ately followed  by  the  Doxology,  a  hymn  of  praise  to  the  Holy 
Trinity,  which  (in  lines  403-415)  contains  a  faithful  paraphrase 
of  the  Sanctus  of  the  Mass.  Of  this  Doxology  I  will  presently 
treat  in  greater  detail.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  direct  attention  to 
the  admirable  connection  which  exists  both  in  Christ  I  and  in  the 
Christmas  Preface  between  the  theme  of  the  eternal  generation 
of  the  Son  and  the  hymn  of  praise  in  honor  of  the  Trinity  im- 
mediately following.  Accordingly,  it  appears  highly  probable 
that  Cynewulf  received  his  suggestion  or  inspiration  for  Division 
X  from  the  Preface  of  the  midnight-Mass  on  Christmas,  so  that 
this  Preface  might  be  considered  the  direct  source  for  this  portion 
of  the  poem. 

While  we  are  thus  led  to  look  upon  the  Preface  in  question  as 
the  source  of  Division  X,  other  influences  in  the  lines  composing 
it  cannot  be  denied.  This  is  especially  apparent  in  the  second  half 
of  the  division,  the  petition  in  Hnes  358*'-377.  Here  the  material 
does  not  seem  to  be  taken  from  the  Christmas  service  in  the 
same  degree  as  in  the  address.  But  we  must  remember  that  the 
clue  to  the  sources  upon  which  Cynewulf  relied  is  always  more 
evident  from  the  address  than  from  the  petition,  in  which  the 
personal  emotions  of  the  poet  hold  larger  sway.  If  this  division 
of  Christ  I  should  represent  the  poet's  own  *'0,"  he  would  a 
fortiori  be  at  liberty  to  develop  his  own  thoughts  in  accordance 
with  his  personal  feelings  at  the  time  of  writing. 

Nevertheless,  the  central  thought  of  the  petition,  that  of  our 
captivity,  appears  to  be  taken  again  from  the  Christmas  Office. 
The  Prayer  of  the  third  Mass  and  of  all  parts  of  the  Office  for 
Christmas  day  is  as  follows : 

Concede,  quaesumus  omnipotens  Deus :  ut  nos  Unigeniti 
tui  nova  per  carnem  Nativitas  liberet,  quos  sub  peccati  jugo 
vetusta  servitus  tenet.  Per  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum 
Christum.     *     *     * 

It  is  for  the  deliverance  from  the  "ancient  slavery  under  the 
subjection  of  sin"  that  the  Church  prays  in  her  official  Prayer 
for  the  feast  of  the  Nativity.     This  slavery  implies  just  what 

"For  a  full  explanation  of  the  Sanctus  in  the  Mass  see  Cook,  111  f. 


ON   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  43 

Cynewulf  expresses  in  the  petition  of  Division  X,  our  subjection 
to  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  and  to  the  influences  of  the  evil  spirit.^^ 

Another  Prayer  on  which  the  poet  may  have  partly  relied  is 
the  Prayer  for  the  Ember  Saturday  of  Advent,  which  is  the 
Saturday  preceding  the  last  Sunday  of  Advent  It  is  the  follow- 
ing: 

Deus,  qui  conspicis,  quia  ex  nostra  pravitate  affligimur: 
concede  propitius ;  ut  ex  tua  visitatione  consolemur,  Qui  vivis 
et  regnas,  etc. 

The  phrase  quia  ex  nostra  pravitate  affligimur  seems  to  find  its 
counterpart  in  line  362  of  the  Christ, 

hu  we  sind  geswencte  /?urh  ure  sylfra  gewill. 
and  the  phrase  ut  ex  tua  visitatione  consolemur,  in  lines  SGT^-SBS', 

*     *     *     /?3et  pin  hidercyme 

afrefre  feasceafte.  *  *  * 
Our  conclusion  with  regard  to  Division  X  of  Christ  I  is  there- 
fore this :  In  default  of  any  existing  Greater  Antiphon  which  can 
safely  be  determined  as  constituting  the  source  for  this  division, 
these  lines  may  appropriately  be  considered  as  representing  the 
poet's  own  "O,"  and  the  material  incorporated  in  this  portion  of 
the  poem  is  taken  from  the  Christmas  service,  the  chief  source 
being  the  Preface  of  the  midnight-Mass. 

Division  XI :   Lines  378-415 

This  division  of  Christ  I  Cook  bases  on  "two  of  the  Antiphons 
for  Lauds  on  Trinity  Sunday,  according  to  the  Sarum  Use."'^^ 
They  are, 

O  Beata  et  Benedicta  et  Gloriosa  Trinitas,  Pater  et  Filius 
et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 

Te  jure  laudant,  Te  adorant,  Te  glorificant  omnes  creaturae 
tuae,  O  Beata  Trinitas. 

Just  why  these  two  Antiphons  should  be  restricted  to  the 
Sarum  Use  is  not  quite  clear.  Since  the  Added  or  Monastic  O's 
used  by  Cynewulf  are  not  contained  in  the  Sarum  Use,  it  would 
seem  more  natural  to  seek  the  Antiphons  in  question  in  an 
Antiphonary  containing  all  the  O-Antiphons  employed  in  Christ 
I.    Such  is  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  in  which  we  find  the  two 

'"For  an  analysis  of  the  petition  see  pages  39  f.  above. 
"Cook,  p.  108. 


44  THE  DEPEINDENCE  OF  CHRIST  I. 

Trinity  Antiphons  in  the  Lauds  of  the  Office  called  Ystoria  de 
sea.  Trinitate,^^  which  follows  the  Sundays  and  ferias  between 
Epiphany  and  the  Sunday  Septuagesima.  In  the  Leofric  Col- 
lectar  ^^  these  Antiphons  to  the  Holy  Trinity  appear  immediately 
after  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany  for  Sunday  use.  The  "Trinity 
Sunday"  of  which  Cook  speaks  was  not  kept;  as  a  special  feast  in 
the  days  of  Cynewulf,  each  Sunday  of  the  year  being  consecrated 
to  the  memory  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  Whenever  it  was  a  common 
Sunday,  that  is,  when  no  feast  of  our  Lord  or  other  great  solem- 
nity fell  on  a  Sunday,  the  Antiphons  of  the  Trinity  were  used. 
When  speaking  of  the  sources  for  Division  XI,  we  should  there- 
fore refer  to  these  two  Antiphons  as  taken  from  the  "Sunday 
service."  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  Antiphons  here  employed 
by  Cynewulf  lay  much  nearer  as  a  source  than  their  use  on  the 
feast  of  the  Trinity  ^*  would  imply. 

The  two  Antiphons  in  honor  of  the  Trinity  come  into  question 
as  a  source  for  Division  XI  of  Christ  I  only  as  far  as  line  402. 
Lines  403-415  constitute  the  heavenly  chorus  of  the  angels,  and 
are  a  faithful  transcription  of  the  Sanctus  or  "Trisagion"  of  the 
Mass,  which  is : 

Sanctus,  Sanctus,  Sanctus :  Dominus  Deus  Sabaoth.  Pleni 
sunt  coeli  et  terra  gloria  tua.  Hosanna  in  excelsis!  Bene- 
dictus  qui  venit  in  nomine  Domini.    Hosanna  in  excelsis ! 

It  was  seen  above  that  the  Doxology  in  Christ  I  thus  presents 
a  counterpart  of  the  Angelic  hymn  following  the  chanting  of  the 
Preface  in  the  Mass.  And  since  the  preceding  portion  of  the 
poem  appears  to  be  based  on  the  Christmas  Preface,  the  connec- 
tion here  is  natural  and  plain.  The  first  part  of  this  division 
(lines  378-402),  therefore,  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  introduction 
to  this  Angelic  hymn,  just  as  in  the  Preface  of  the  Mass  the 
Sanctus  is  introduced  after  the  glorification  of  the  respective 
mystery  or  feast,  which  in  our  case  is  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son  of  God. 

Though  the  poet  follows  his  sources  rather  closely  in  Division 
XI,  the  unifying  element  for  the  whole  division  appears  to  have 

^^  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  p.  104. 

^^The  Leofric  Collectar,  Harl.  MS.  2961;  ed.  by  E.  S.  Dewick,  London, 
1914,  Henry  Bradshaw  Society,  vol,  45.— cf.  fol.  32''-33'. 

"The  feast  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  observed  on  the  Sunday  after  the 
feast  of  Pentecost  or  Whitsunday. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  45 

been  furnished  by  another  Antiphon  which  is  now  used  in  the 
Votive  Office  of  the  Angels.    It  is  the  following: 

Laudemus  Dominum,  quern  laudant  Angeli,  quern  Cheru- 
bim et  Seraphim  Sanctus,  Sanctus,  Sanctus  proclamant. 

It  will  be  observed  that  both  the  Antiphon  here  given  and  the 
Doxology  of  Cynewulf  show  three  parts.  The  thoughts  of  the 
Antiphon  are  disposed  as  follows:  (a)  Laudemus  Dominum; 
(b)  quern  laudant  Angeli;  (c)  qu£m  Cherubim  et  Seraphim 
Sanctus,  Sanctus,  Sanctus  proclamant. 

Division  XI  of  Christ  I  gives  the  same  disposition  of  thoughts 
in  its  three  parts  as  follows : 

(a)  Lines  378-384  develop,  the  thought  contained  in  the  first 
member  of  the  Antiphon,  Laudemus  Dominum.  It  is  we  who 
praise  the  Lord : 

*     ^     *     reordberende, 

earme  eor^ware,  ealle  maegene 

hergan  healice.     *     *     *  (lines  SSl^-SSS') 

(b)  Lines  385-402  paraphrase  the  second  member  of  the  An- 
tiphon, quern  laudant  Angeli  (quem  Cherubim  et  Seraphim  pro- 
clamant). This  whole  part  is  devoted  to  the  angels,  to  their 
ministries  and  sports  before  the  throne  of  heaven,  and  to  their 
manner  of  song. 

(c)  Lines  403-415  finally  expand  the  third  member  of  the 
Antiphon  so  as  to  produce  the  whole  of  that  Angelic  hymn  which 
is  merely  intoned  in  this  Antiphon. 

Thus  the  Doxology  of  Christ  I  appears  to  have  been  carefully 
planned  by  the  poet  both  in  its  construction  and  in  the  position 
which  it  holds  in  the  poem.  It  completes  the  extensive  hymn 
of  praise  which  Cynewulf  so  skilfully  wrought  from  the  Greater 
Antiphons  of  the  Advent  season. 

Division  XII :  Lines  416-439 
is  based  on  the  Antiphon  used  on  the  Octave  of  Christmas : 

O  admirabile  commercium,  Creator  generis  humani  ani- 
matum  corpus  sumens,  de  Virgine  nasci  dignatus  est :  et  pro- 
cedens  homo  sine  semine,  largitus  est  nobis  suam  deltatem 
In  1914  Professor  Samuel  Moore  ^^  published  his  discovery  of 


In  Modern  Language  Notes,  xxix.  226  f. 


46  TH^  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST  I. 

this  source.  While  he  quoted  only  lines  416-421*  as  being  based 
on  this  Antiphon,  a  closer  examination  will  show  that  the  influence 
of  the  Antiphon  extends  at  least  to  line  428. 

It  is  true,  lines  421*'-425  appear  to  be  an  interpolation.  Yet  the 
thought  connection  seems  to  be  this:  if 

ne  /7urh  ssed  ne  cwom  sigores  agend 

monnes  ofer  moldan;  (lines  420-421') 

then  how  did  the  Son  of  God  come?  Mary  had  herself  asked 
this  question  of  the  angel  Gabriel  when  he  announced  to  her 
God's  design  to  choose  her  as  the  mother  of  His  Son.  She  had 
said,  quomodo  fiet  istudf  The  angel  replied,  virtus  Altissimi 
obumbrabit  tibi,^^  and  this  answer  is  made  the  burden  of  the 
interpolated  lines  421M25 : 

*     *     *     ac  pxt  waes  ma(ra)  craeft 

ponne  hit  eor^buend  ealle  cu^an 

puvh  geryne,  hu  he,  rodera  prim, 

heofona  Heahfrea,  helpe  gefremede 

monna  cynne  purh.  his  modor  hrif.  (lines  421'*-425) 

Note  the  connection  between  virtus  and  crceft,  between  Altissimi 
and  Heahfrea,  and  between  obumbrabit  tibi  and  his  modor  hrif 
which  implies  the  same  thought. 

After  this  short  interpolation  explaining  the  manner  of  Christ's 
coming,  the  poet  returns  to  the  antiphonal  passage :  et  procedens 
*     *     *     largitus  est  nobis  suam  deitatem  as  follows : 

Ond,  swa  for^  gongende,  folca  Nergend 

his  forgifnesse  gumum  to  helpe 

daele^  dogra  gehwam,  Dryhten  weoroda.  (lines  426-8)  ^'^ 

This  analysis  shows  conclusively,  I  think,  that  the  Antiphon 
O  admirabile  commercium  forms  the  basis  for  lines  416-428,  thus 
extending  farther  in  its  influence  than  to  line  421'. 

The  remaining  portion  of  this  division,  lines  429-439,  is  given 
over  to  a  final  exhortation  by  the  poet  to  the  praise  and  adoration 
of  God.  That,  he  says,  is  the  true  wisdom  of  life,  for  onfy 
through  the  love  of  his  God  can  man  hope  to  reach  that  eternal 

■"Luke,  i.  35. 

"  Whitman,  The  Christ  of  Cyneivulf,  Boston,  1900,  p.  16,  translates  line 
426,  "So  continually  the  Savior  of  mankind."  It  should  rather  be,  "And 
thus  going  forth,  the  Savior  of  mankind,"  in  agreement  with  the  Antiphon. 
Whitman's  translation,  it  is  well  to  observe,  preceded  the  discovery  of 
this  source  by  Moore. — Cook  (p.  245)  explains  forgiefnes  as  "bounty," 
"largess."    This  agrees  well  with  the  largitus  est  of  the  Antiphon. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  47 

reward  "in  the  country  where  as  yet  he  hath  not  come,  in  the 
joy  of  the  land  of  the  Hving,  where  he  shall  dwell  blessed  for 
evermore,  there  henceforth  abiding  world  without  end.    Amen."  ^® 

This  last  section  of  Christ  I  was  regarded  by  Cook  ^^  as  a 
climactic  or  resumptive  portion  leading  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
great  theme  of  Christ's  advent  to  men.  From  the  knowledge 
that  we  now  have  of  its  source,  however,  this  concluding  division 
is  seen  to  paraphrase  an  Antiphon  belonging  in  Church  use  to  the 
Octave  of  the  feast  of  the  Nativity.  This  fact  would  suggest 
that  Cynewulf  composed  lines  416-439  some  time  after  the  Dtox- 
ology  had  been  written,  for  in  the  following  chapter  it  will  be 
seen  how  the  poet  followed  precisely  the  Church  use  of  his  sources. 
Thus  Division  XII  partakes  of  the  nature  of  an  addition  or 
appendage  to  the  theme  proper  of  the  Advent,  especially  since 
the  symmetrical  disposition  of  the  O-paraphrases  in  Christ  I  seems 
to  exclude  it  from  the  original  plan  of  the  poem. 

My  examination  of  the  sources  which  form  the  bases  for  the 
twelve  separate  divisions  in  Christ  I  has  given  this  result : 

The  sources  determined  by  Cook  are  clear  in  all  the  divisions 
of  the  poem,  except  in  Divisions  VII,  X,  and  XII.  Though  the 
direct  source  for  Division  VII,  or  the  Passus,  must  remain  unde- 
termined, the  material  which  has  suggested  its  composition  be- 
longs to  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity,  the  ultimate  source  being  the 
Gospel  passage  of  that  day,  Matth.,  i.  18-21.  Because  the  Passus 
appears  out  of  place  in  the  symmetrical  scheme  apparent  in 
Christ  /  as  a  whole,  it  might  be  looked  upon  as  an  interpolation 
by  a  later  writer.  The  source  at  which  I  have  arrived  in  Division 
X  is  the  Preface  sung  in  the  midnight-Mass  on  Christmas.  Espe- 
cially has  the  connection  between  this  division  and  the  following 
Doxology  influenced  the  acceptance  of  this  Preface  as  the  source 
of  Division  X.  The  source  for  Division  XII,  discovered  by 
Moore,  has  been  extended  to  include  lines  416-428. 

In  addition  to  the  closer  determination  of  these  sources,  atten- 
tion was  directed  to  various  points  of  dispute  connected  with 
them.  The  unity  of  Division  II  was  more  fully  established.  The 
O  Sapientia  was  eliminated  as  a  source  for  lines  239-240,  and 
for  Division  X.  The  O  Gabriel  was  likewise  excluded  from 
Division  IX,  and  the  0  Radix  from  Division  X.     The  sources 

'« Whitman,  I.e.,  p.  16. 
'•  P.  113. 


48  THS  DEiPENDENCE  OF  CHRIST  I. 

of  the  Doxology,  Division  XI,  as  far  as  lines  378-402  are  affected, 
were  shown  to  be  derived  from  the  common  Sunday  Office,  and 
thus  to  have  been  in  closer  proximity  to  the  feast  of  Christmas 
than  they  are  at  the  present  time  in  their  use  on  Trinity  Sunday. 
But  before  a  final  estimate  of  the  sources  in  Christ  I  can  be 
had,  an  account  must  be  rendered  of  the  possible  sources  in  the 
lost  portion  of  the  Christ,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  more  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  precise  plan  or  scheme  followed  by  Cynewulf 
in  the  construction  of  his  poem. 

3.  The  Sources  of  the  Lost  Portion 

The  poem  of  the  Christ  forms  the  very  beginning  of  the  manu- 
script in  the  Exeter  Library,  called  the  Bxeter  Book.  Of  this 
manuscript  the  first  seven  folios  or  fourteen  pages  have  been 
destroyed,  our  poem  continuing  on  folio  8'  with  the  word  Cyninge 
("to  the  King"),  thus  launching  immediately  into  the  first  division 
which  is  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon  O  Rex  gentium,  the  first 
lines  of  which  even  are  missing.^**  How  many  of  the  seven  lost 
leaves  of  the  manuscript  were  devoted  to  the  subject  of  Christ  I 
will,  of  course,  always  remain  more  or  less  a  matter  of  conjecture. 

A  review  of  existing  treatises  on  the  Christ  of  Cynewulf  reveals 
a  considerable  lack  of  attention  to  this  portion  lost  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  poem.  It  is  true,  there  is  very  little  definite 
information,  if  any,  at  hand  concerning  the  lost  leaves,  and  all 
that  can  be  said  about  them  must  be  more  or  less  the  result  of 
speculation.  Still  the  preserved  portions  of  the  Christ,  and 
especially  those  of  Christ  I,  should  not  be  altogether  devoid  of 
some  tangible  clue  concerning  the  probable  content  of  the  missing 
lines. 

It  is  particularly  when  we  are  striving  to  ascertain  the  complete 
number  of  sources  employed  by  Cynewulf  in  Christ  I  that  the 
lacuna  appearing  at  the  beginning  of  the  manuscript  is  most 
keenly  felt.  For  the  sources  of  the  existing  twelve  divisions,  if 
taken  in  their  ensemble,  present  the  same  lacuna.  And  strangely, 
this  lacuna  appears  in  the  same  place  as  in  the  manuscript,  at 
the  beginning.    Such  a  coincidence  should  give  us  almost  definite 

^  Cook  (p.  73)  says  that  what  is  lost  of  this  first  division  must  cover 
the  words  O  Rex  gentium,  et  desideratus  earum  of  the  Antiphon,  and 
thus  can  scarcely  have  exceeded  a  dozen  lines,  at  most. — For  a  full  de- 
scription and  general  account  of  the  Exeter  Book  see  Cook,  pp.  xiii-xvi. 


"    ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  49 

information  about  the  content  of  the  lost  portion.  But  a  closer 
examination  of  the  question  will  make  the  point  clearer. 

In  the  study  above  of  the  sources  which  constitute  the  bases 
for  the  smaller  divisions  of  Christ  I  it  was  seen  that  eight  of 
them,  i.e.,  all  except  Divisions  VII,  X,  XI,  and  XII,  are  based 
upon  one  or  the  other  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent.  The 
respective  Antiphons  are:  O  Rex  gentium;  O  Clavis  David;  O 
Hierusalem ;  O  Virgo  virginum ;  O  Oriens  ;  O  Emmanuel ;  O  Rex 
Pacifice;  and  O  mundi  Domina. 

But  how  does  this  list  of  Greater  Antiphons  compare  with  the 
lists  found  in  the  Antiphonaries  and  Breviaries  ?  To  any  student 
of  the  liturgy  of  the  Roman  Church  the  Cynewulfian  set  of 
Greater  Antiphons  must  appear  defective.  For  the  absence  of 
three  Great  O's,  of  the  O  Sapientia,  the  O  Adonai,  and  the  0 
Radix,  finds  no  precedent  in  the  history  of  the  liturgy.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  first  seven  Greater  Antiphons  of  St.  Gregory's 
Liher  Responsalis  ^^  have  become  from  his  time  the  standard 
set  of  Advent  O's  used  in  the  Roman  Church.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  a  single  Antiphonary,  the  Vatican  MS.  B  79  as  published 
by  Tommasi,^^  all  the  Antiphonaries  of  the  Roman  Use  contain 
the  seven  Greater  Antiphons  that  take  the  first  place  in  the  Liber 
Responsalis  of  St.  Gregory.  They  are :  O  Sapientia,  O  Adonai, 
O  Radix,  O  Clavis  David,  O  Oriens,  O  Rex  gentium,  and  O 
Emmanuel.^^ 

Because  these  seven  Antiphons  were  accepted  in  all  the  churches 
following  the  Roman  Use,  they  formed  in  each  case  the  nucleus 
around  which  the  added  O's  were  in  the  course  of  time  assembled 
wherever  such  additional  Antiphons  came  into  use.  These  addi- 
tional O's  were  never  allowed  to  replace  or  supersede  the  seven 
Great  O's.  In  the  treatises  of  all  liturgiologists  these  seven  O's 
are  taken  as  the  point  of  departure.  Their  list  was  considered 
so  familiar,  that  they  were  often  referred  to  as  merely  "The 
Seven  O's"  (Septem  O).  When  Pope  Pius  V.  (1566-1572) 
undertook  a  thorough  reform  of  the  Roman  Breviary,  he  re- 

"  In  Migne,  P.  L-,  78,  732  f . 

*"Tommasi,  Opera  Omnia, -ed.  Vezzosi,  Rome,  1749,  iv.  28. 

"  Outside  the  Roman  Use,  as  in  the  Mozarabic  and  Ambrosian  Brevi- 
aries, no  Great  O's  appear.  So  also  in  the  first  edition  of  Cardinal 
Quingon's  Breviary  of  1535;  in  later  editions  of  the  latter  the  three  last 
O's  in  the  Roman  list  were  sometimes  used;  cf.  Everard  Green,  "On  the 
words  O  Sapientia  in  the  Kalendar,"  in  Archceologia,  xlix,  236. 


50  THX  DEPENDENCE  OF  CHRIST  I. 

scinded  all  Advent  O's  that  had  been  added  to  the  customary 
number  here  and  there,  and  retained  the  seven  Great  O's  alone. 

T|he  absence  of  three  of  these  seven  O's  in  Christ  I  is  conse- 
quently a  striking  feature  of  the  poem.  The  three  Antiphons 
not  treated  by  Cynewulf,  the  O  Sapientia,  O  Adonai,  and  0 
Radix,  take  the  precedence  in  all  the  lists  of  O-Antiphons,**  and 
it  would  be  difficult  to  assume  that  Cynewulf  did  not  include  them 
in  the  scheme  of  his  poem. 

I  realize,  however,  that  it  is  necessary  to  obviate  two  objections 
that  might  be  raised  at  this  point.  In  the  first  place,  it  might  be 
pointed  out  that  Cynewulf  was  at  liberty  to  choose  his  themes 
and  exclude  from  his  treatment  of  the  Advent  of  Christ  any 
number  of  specific  sources.  But  the  existing  portion  of  the 
Christ  seems  to  argue  against  this  position.  In  it  the  poet  is 
seen  to  employ  as  sources  for  his  paraphrases  all  the  additional 
O-Antiphons  ^^  that  are  found  in  the  most  complete  Antiphonary 
of  his  time.  From  this  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  poet  it  seems 
evident  that  he  wished  to  present  the  full  number  of  the  original 
O's  at  least.  Wherefore,  such  a  degree  of  arbitrariness  as  the 
conscious  omission  of  the  three  first  Greater  Antiphons  would 
imply  can  hardly  be  imputed  to  him. 

In  the  second  place,  the  omission  of  all  three  O's  in  question 
might  be  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  O  Sapientia  and  the  O 
Radix  at  least  are  represented  in  lines  239-240,  and  lines  348-377, 
respectively.  Yet  the  examination  which  I  have  made  of  these 
portions  of  Christ  I  ^®  leads  me  to  believe  that  the  lines  in  ques- 
tion do  not  warrant  the  acceptance  of  these  two  Antiphons  as 
constituting  the  sources  for  them  intended  by  the  poet.  Besides, 
these  two  Antiphons  appear  too  important  to  assign  such  sec- 
ondary places  to  them  in  Christ  I. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  three  missing  O's  can  safely 
be  placed  in  the  missing  portion  of  the  Christ.  The  one  lacuna 
covers  the  other.  Because  the  three  O's  wanting  in  Christ  I  are 
just  the  three  first  of  the  Advent  Antiphons,  their  proper  place 
is  at  the  beginning  of  the  poem.     It  will  not  be  denied  by  any 

"  The  only  exception  recorded  is  that  of  the  Antiphonary  of  Metz  as 
reported  by  Amalarius ;  cf.  Amalarius,  De  Ordine  Antiphonarii,  in  Migne, 
P.  L.,  105,  1266-69 ;  cf .  also  Cook,  p.  85. 

'*  With  the  possible  exception  of  the  O  Gabriel,  for  it  seems  to  be  absent 
from  Christ  1.  Cook  (p.  73)  would  put  it  also  in  the  lost  portion  of  the 
poem. 

^  See  pages  30,  33  above. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  51 

Student  of  the  Christ  that  some  part  of  the  poem  is  missing  in 
the  manuscript  as  preserved.  The  poet  must  certainly  have 
treated  one  or  more  definite  themes  in  that  lost  portion,  and  judg- 
ing from  the  opening  theme  of  the  preserved  portion,  those 
themes  must  have  been  paraphrases  of  Greater  Antiphons  similar 
to  the  O  Rex  gentium  paraphrase  of  lines  1-17. 

With  the  O  Sapientia,  the  O  Adonai,  and  the  0  Radix  in  the 
first  larger  division  of  Christ  I,  moreover,  the  symmetrical  pro- 
portions apparent  in  the  preserved  manuscript  for  Part  I  of  the 
Christ  would  find  their  perfection.  For  the  practical  purpose 
of  this  study,  therefore,  the  lost  portion  of  Christ  I  will  be  accept- 
ed as  containing  at  least  the  three  Great  O's  not  found  in  the 
remaining  divisions,  the  O  Sapientia,  the  0  Adonai,  and  the  0 
Radix. 

The  sources  arrived  at  in  the  preceding  study  of  the  contents 
of  Christ  I,  in  conjunction  with  the  results  of  the  investigations 
previously  carried  on  by  Cook  and  Moore,  are  brought  together 
in  the  following  table,  which,  by  retaining  the  larger  divisions 
marked  in  the  manuscript,  except  for  Division  VII  which  is  not 
based  on  an  O-Antiphon,  shows  how  the  symmetry  of  the  poem 
is  maintained  in  the  lost  portion: 

-  (Lost  Portion)  O  Sapientia 

-  "  "  O  Adonai 

-  "  "  O  Radix 
based  on  O  Rex  gentium 

"    O  Clavis  David 
"       "    O  Hierusalem 
"       "    O  Virgo  virginum 
"       "   O  Oriens 
"       "   O  Emmanuel 

Matth.  i.  18-21.  Passus 
"    O  Rex  Pacifice 
"       "    O  mundi  Domina 
"       "    Poet's  own  "O" :  Christmas 

Preface 
"        "    Trinity  Antiphons.    Doxology 
"       "    O  admirabile  commercium 
With  the  sources  of  Christ  I  as  they  appear  here  the  subsequent 
discussion  will  have  to  deal.     Since  the  purpose  of  this  study  is 


I. 

Lines 

1-17 

II. 

(( 

18-49 

III. 

(( 

50-70 

IV. 

" 

71-103 

V. 

(( 

104-129 

VI. 

« 

130-163 

VII. 

a 

164-213 

/III. 

(( 

214-274 

IX. 

a 

275-347 

X. 

t( 

348-377 

XL 

<( 

378-415 

XII. 

i( 

416-439 

52  THi:   DEPENDENCE   OF    CHRIST   I. 

to  investigate  the  influence  of  these  sources  upon  the  peculiar 
arrangement  of  material  in  the  poem,  to  ascertain  the  relation 
which  the  smaller  divisions  bear  to  each  other  and  to  the  larger 
outline  of  Christ  I,  it  was  first  necessary  to  establish  as  nearly  as 
possible  the  precise  succession  of  sources  as  a  working  basis  for 
that  investigation.  Such  a  basis,  I  believe,  was  reached  in  the 
foregoing  study. 


Ill 

THE  SOURCES  AS  FOUND  IN  ACTUAL  CHURCH  USE 


1.  G^NERAiv  Observations 

With  the  more  definite  knowledge  of  the  sources  of  the  twelve 
divisions  of  Christ  I  which  Cook  first  made  current  to  students  of 
the  Christ,  a  better  understanding  of  Cynewulf's  poem  has  since 
prevailed.  Not  only  have  the  complexities  that  marred  earHer 
investigations  been  cleared  away,  but  a  way  was  broken  into  the 
comprehension  of  that  spirit  of  religious  fervor  with  which  the 
whole  poem  is  pervaded.  Only  through  a  deeper  knowledge  of 
the  influences  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  and  the  celebration  of 
Advent  in  the  mediaeval  Church  upon  the  poet,  can  we  arrive  at 
a  true  valuation  of  his  work  and  find  spiritual  enjoyment  in  the 
study  of  such  a  masterpiece  as  the  Christ  represents. 

The  addition  to  the  knowledge  of  the  sources  of  Christ  I  made 
by  Moore,  and  the  further  discoveries  by  myself,  as  pointed  out 
in  the  last  chapter,  give  us  a  wider  field  in  which  to  extend  our 
knowledge  of  the  true  relation  existing  between  the  Christ  and 
the  sources  employed  in  it. 

If  an  appreciation  of  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  sources  and 
of  their  influence  in  the  life  of  the  Church  reveals  to  us  the 
spirit  out  of  which  the  poetic  version  of  those  sources  was  born, 
does  the  connection  between  sources  and  poem  end  there?  Is 
there  not  perhaps  a  connection  also  between  the  very  external 
structure  or  plan  of  Christ  I  and  the  Latin  originals  as  Cynewulf 
found  them?  That  is  precisely  the  field  still  lying  unexplored. 
For  a  mere  knowledge  of  the  text  of  the  O-Antiphons  and  other 
sources  in  Christ  I  can  lead  us  no  farther  than  to  regard  them 
simply  as  the  bases  of  the  individual  paraphrases  in  the  poem, 
and  nothing  more.  The  plan  of  the  poem  will  still  retain  its 
chaotic  structure.  Cynewulf  will  still  be  considered  arbitrary 
in  the  use  of  his  material,  disdaining  to  follow  an  outline  oflFered 
in  the  very  book  from  which  he  drew  most  of  his  sources. 

Hence,  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  appreciation  of  the  full  relation 
existing  between  the  sources  of  Christ  I  and  the  poem  itself,  it 
is  not  sufficient  to  regard  these  sources  merely  as  the  well  of 

53 


54  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF    CHRIST   I. 

inspiration  for  the  poet,  or  even  as  the  mere  storehouse  of  that 
definite  material  through  which  the  poetic  inspiration  was  to 
function.  Their  influence  certainly  must  lie  deeper.  Indeed, 
Cook  ^  seems  to  intimate  as  much,  when  he  says : 

*  *  *  it  is  apparent  that  we  must  conceive  of  Cynewulf 
as  so  thrilled  by  the  szveet  and  solemn  chanting  of  the  Greater 
Antiphons  of  Advent,  and  so  imbued  with  their  spirit 
through  reflection  upon  their  rich  devotional  and  doctrinal 
contents,  that  he  gladly  yielded  to  the  impulse  to  reproduce 
them  in  English  under  the  form  of  variation.^ 

It  is,  accordingly,  only  in  harmony  with  the  knowledge  we  have 
of  Cynewulf  as  a  man  and  a  poet  that  we  conceive  of  him  as 
attending  in  person  the  chanting  of  the  O-Antiphons  in  the 
Divine  Office,  and  thus  receiving  the  inspiration  for  the  suc- 
ceeding portions  of  Christ  I.  This  view  precludes  the  assumption 
that  Cynewulf  had  the  Antiphonary  at  his  elbow  when  composing 
his  poem,  and  that  he  selected  from  the  list  of  Greater  Antiphons 
appearing  there  the  respective  O's  as  his  fancy  would  dictate. 
On  the  contrary,  the  sources  became  for  him,  as  it  were,  living 
themes,  and  he  proceeded  to  paraphrase  them  as  living  thoughts 
of  his  own  inner  self,  stamped  with  his  own  religious  views  and 
emotions.  The  very  order  in  which  these  paraphrases  appear 
in  the  poem  must  then  be  a  natural  one  without  any  forced 
positions.  They  must  flow,  not  indeed  from  a  lifeless  and  cold 
list  contained  in  any  one  book,  but  from  the  very  life  which 
the  distinct  members  of  that  list  receive  in  their  proper  liturgical 
setting  in  the  Divine  Office. 

To  ascertain  their  proper  setting  will  be  the  task  of  the 
present  chapter.  For  this  purpose  it  will  be  necessary  to  study 
the  sources  of  Christ  I  as  they  were  actually  used  by  the  mediaeval 
Church  in  her  service,  for  only  through  a  knowledge  of  that  use 
will  the  liturgical  setting  of  these  sources  appear  and  permit  a 
comparison  of  their  order  of  succession  with  the  arrangement 
of  material  in  the  poem  of  Cynewulf. 

The  first  step  towards  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  Church  use 
of  the  sources  employed  by  Cynewulf  in  Christ  I  must  be  the 
adjustment  of  any  false  impressions  which  the  customary  me- 
chanical tabulation  of  these  sources  in  the  service  books  of  the 

'  P.  xlii.  . 

'  The  italics  are  mine. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  55 

Church  might  create.  Since  the  principal  sources  of  our  poem  are 
the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent,  this  applies  more  specifically 
to  the  list  of  these  O-Antiphons  in  the  Antiphonary. 

An  examination  of  almost  any  Antiphonary  or  Breviary  will 
show  that  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent  are  assembled  at  one 
place  in  the  book  or  codex,  though  they  are  to  be  used  on  various 
daiys.  The  place  assigned  to  them  in  these  books  is  usually 
before  the  fourth  Sunday  in  Advent,^  or  immediately  preceding 
the  Office  for  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity.*  In  more  modern 
Breviaries  the  date  of  the  month  on  which  they  are  to  be  used 
is  attached,  but  in  the  ancient  Antiphonaries  this  is  not  the  case. 
Why,  it  will  be  asked,  were  the  O-Antiphons  assembled  in  a  list 
in  the  Church  books,  and  not  distributed  over  the  days  on  which 
they  were  chanted  ?    It  was  for  the  following  practical  reason. 

The  Advent  season  is  a  preparation  for  the  feast  of  the  Nativity 
or  Christmas.  It  comprises  four  weeks,^  and  the  Office  of  Advent 
is'  accordingly  arranged  in  weeks,  not  in  days  of  the  month.  Be- 
cause Christmas  is  attached  to  a  fixed  day  of  the  month,  December 
25,  and  the  Office  is  arranged  in  four  full  weeks,  the  last  week 
of  Advent  (in  which  the  O-Antiphons  are  being  chanted)  is 
constantly  shifting,  as  the  day  of  Christmas  shifts  iFrom  one 
day  of  the  week  to  the  other.  If  December  25  falls  on  a  Mon- 
day, the  day  preceding  will  be  the  fourth  Sunday  in  Advent,  but 
this  fourth  Sunday  will  then  be  without  its  ferial  or  week-days, 
though  in  the  Office  books  the  fourth  week  appears  complete. 

The  chanting  of  the  O's  is  attached  to  fixed  days  of  the  month, 
like  the  Christmas  festival;  but  they  must  find  their  place  in  an 
Office  arranged  according  to  weeks  and  days  of  the  week.,  Thus 
it  is  necessary  to  assemble  them  into  one  convenient  place,  where 
they  can  be  referred  to  on  the  days  when  they  are  used.  If, 
for  instance,  the  Antiphon  0  Sapientia  is  to  be  sung  on  December 
17,  where  should  this  Antiphon  find  its  proper  place  in  the 
Antiphonary?     It  does  not  register  an  Office  for  December  17, 


^  In  the  Breviary  of  today  they  precede  even  the  ferias  or  weekdays  of 
the  third  week  in  Advent,  that  is,  they  follow  the  Office  of  the  third 
Sunday. 

*  Thus  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  pp.  40  f . 

'  The  number  of  Advent  weeks  varied  in  the  early  Church.  The  Gelasian 
Sacramentary  has  five,  the  Ambrosian  and  Mozarabic  Rites  have  six  weeks, 
cf .  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  v.  167 ;  Dom  Cabrol,  "L'Avent  Liturgique," 
in  Revue  Benedictine,  xxii,  484  ff ;  Grotefend,  Zeitrechnung,  i.  3. 


56  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF    CHRIST   I. 

for  it  runs  with  the  days  of  this  or  that  week  of  Advent.  But 
when  December  17  comes,  the  chanters  will  turn  to  the  list  of 
O's  and  look  there  for  the  particular  Antiphon  to  be  sung  on 
that  day. 

Whatever  place  the  list  of  O-Antiphons  occupied  in  the  service 
books  of  the  Church,  it  found  its  adaptation  in  agreement  with 
various  local  usages.  For  this  reason  a  certain  order  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  list  does  not  necessarily  point  to  the  same 
order  in  the  chanting  of  the  Antiphons.  From  the  Antiphonaries 
of  the  early  Middle  Ages  it  would  appear  that  a  definite  order 
was  mostly  accepted  in  the  list  of  the  O's,  the  order  derived  from 
St.  Gregory  the  Great.  But  local  variant  customs  in  the  use  of 
these  Antiphons  did  exist,  and  these  sometimes  called  for  a 
slight  re-arrangement  of  the  O's.  But  from  the  lists  in  the 
Antiphonaries  themselves,  these  variant  customs  often  do  not 
appear. 

A  clue  to  the  divergent  uses  of  the  O-Antiphons,  in  the  face 
of  the  standard  arrangement  of  the  list,  can  sometimes  be  found 
in  the  directions  given  at  various  places  in  the  Antiphonary.  An 
example  of  this  is  found  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  the 
earliest  known  Antiphonary  containing  all  the  O's  employed  by 
Cynewulf.  In  this  Antiphonary  (pp.  40  f.)  the  list  of  Greater 
Antiphons  is  given  in  its  usual  order,  but  the  rubrics*  which 
refer  to  various  O-Antiphons  within  the  last  week  of  Advent 
appear  to  run  counter  to  the  established  order  of  O's  in  the  list. 

The  Greater  Antiphons  are  listed  as  follows  in  the  Antiphonary 
of  Hartker:^  (1)  O  Sapientia;  (2)  O  Adonai;  (3)  O  Radix 
Jesse;  (4)  O  Clavis  David;  (5)  O  Oriens;  (6)  O  Rex  gentium; 
(7)  O  Emmanuel;  (8)  O  Virgo  virginum;  (9)  O  Gabriel;  (10) 
O  Rex  Pacifice;  (11)  O  mundi  Domina;  (12)  O  Hierusalem. 

This  is  the  customary  order  maintained  in  presenting  the 
Greater  Antiphons.  It  might  be  called  the  standard  or  conven- 
tional order.  The  first  eight  Antiphons  of  this  list  have  the  same 
place  in  the  Liber  Responsalis  of  St.  Gregory,®  and  this  order 


"  The  rubrics  in  the  Breviary  are  the.  rules  laid  down  for  the  recitation 
of  the  Divine  Office,  as  well  as  any  directions  or  references  placed  between 
the  text.  They  are  usually  printed  in  red,  hence  the  name.  Cf :  Dom 
Cabrol,  in  Catholic  Bncyclopcedia,  xiii.  216 — May  calls  the  rubric  a  "gloss," 
see  page  34  above. 

^  Pp.  40  f . — but  in  it  the  Antiphons  are  not  numbered. 

» Migne,  P.  L-,  78,  732. 


OxN    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  57 

was  faithfully  kept  in  the  transcription  of  the  Antiphonaries. 
These  eight  O's  are  followed  by  four  Antiphons  which  came  into 
use  in  the  course  of  time.  The  four  additional  O's  would  in  no 
case  be  inserted  between  the  others  in  the  list,  because  of  their 
later  adoption  and  of  the  respect  in  which  the  original  O's  were 
held.  Yet  in  their  use  they  could  be  taken  before  the  eight  were 
finished,  that  is,  they  could  be  used  along  with  the  other  Great 
O's  for  special  services,  according  to  the  custom  which  prevailed. 

That  this  list  of  Greater  Antiphons  was  adapted  in  various 
ways  appears  to  be  clear  from  the  same  Antiphonary  of  Hartker. 
Within  the  last  week  of  Advent  and  the  Christmas  week  this 
Antiphonary  contains  rubrical  directions  implying  a  use  of  the 
O's  differing  from  that  suggested  by  the  list  of  these  Antiphons 
on  pages  40  f.  The  following  directions  pertain  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  O's  were  to  be  used : 

On  page  31  the  rubric  for  the  Antiphon  of  the  Magnificat  on 
Saturday  preceding  the  last  Sunday  of  Advent  is,  Ant.  O  Sap., 
vel  alia  de  illis  sicut  evenerit. 

On  page  34,  for  the  Antiphon  of  the  Magnificat  on  the  last 
Sunday  of  Advent  (i.e.,  the  day  following  the  rubric  above), 
Ant.  O  Oriens. 

Again  on  page  34,  for  the  Antiphon  of  the  Magnificat  in  the 
week  preceding  the  Nativity,  A7it.  O  Sapientia. 

On  page  44,  for  the  Antiphon  ad  crucem  in  the  Vespers  of  the 
Vigil  of  the  Nativity,  0  Hierusalem  civitas. 

On  page  52,  for  the  Antiphon  ad  crucem  in  the  Vespers  of 
Christmas  day.  Ant.  0  mundi  Domina. 

On  page  69,  for  the  Antiphon  ad  crucem  on  the  feast  of  the 
Holy  Innocents  (December  28),  Ant.  O  Virgo  virginum. 

From  these  directions  it  would  appear  that  the  Antiphon  O 
Oriens  is  affixed  to  the  last  Sunday  of  Advent,  while  the  rubric 
of  page  31  apparently  directs  that  the  Antiphons  should  be  taken 
in  their  regular  order  laid  down  in  the  list  on  page  40.  The 
remark  on  page  34,  which  assigns  the  Antiphon  O  Sapientia 
to  the  Vespers  in  the  week  preceding  Christmas,  seems  to  apply 
to  all  the  O's  in  their  respective  turn,  and  not  to  the  first  of  these 
alone.  The  O  Hierusalem,  the  O  mundi  Domina,  and  the  O  Virgo 
virginum  are  assigned  indiscriminately  to  the  service  ad  crucem,^ 
which  consisted  of  the  "memorials"  after  the  Magnificat.     In 

'A  fuller  discussion  of  this  service  follows  below. 


58  THE  de:pe:nde:nck^  of  CHRIST  I. 

this  use,  moreover,  they  are  not  taken  in  the  order  which  they 
hold  in  the  Hst  of  0-Antiphons  on  page  40.  There  they  follow 
thus:  O  Virgo  virginum,  (O  Gabriel),  (O  Rex  Pacifice),  O 
mundi  Domina,  O  Hierusalem.  Here  the  order  is  inverted:  O 
Hierusalem,  O  mundi  Domina,  O  Virgo  virginum.  And  what 
disposition  was  made  of  the  O  Gabriel  and  the  O  Rex  Pacifice? 
The  Antiphonary  is  silent  regarding  them. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  list  of  0-Antiphons  in  an  Antiphonary 
was  variously  adapted  in  actual  use,  that  this  list  is  merely  a 
list  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  and  perhaps  also  for  the  sake 
of  preserving  the  traditional  order  in.it.  The  example  given  here 
of  Hartker's  Antiphonary  could  no  doubt  be  multiplied  from 
similar  rubrics  in  various  other  Antiphonaries,  but  for  our 
purpose  this  instance  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  actual  Church 
use  of  the  Antiphons  in  question  can  be  ascertained  only  through 
an  interpretation  of  the  directions  given  in  the  service  books  for 
the  celebration  of  the  Divine  Office  and  for  the  various  uses 
connected  with  it.  The  mechanical  tabulation  of  these  Cyne- 
wulfian  sources  in  the  Antiphonary  must  not  lead  us  into  the 
error  of  jumping  too  hastily  at  conclusions  not  justified  by  actual 
Church  use. 

The  various  adaptations  which  the  Greater  Antiphons  undoubt- 
edly received  in  the  various  churches  of  mediaeval  Christianity 
lead  us  to  the  second  consideration  in  our  endeavor  to  ascertain 
the  actual  Church  use  of  these  Antiphons.  In  dealing  with  the 
liturgical  practices  of  the  early  Middle  Ages,  we  must  divest 
ourselves  of  the  notions  which  the  present-day  well-established 
conformity  and  uniformity  have  created.  In  those  early  days 
there  was  as  yet  no  definite  ordo  prescribed  for  all  the  churches 
of  Christendom.  The  epoch  to  which  Cynewulf  belongs  presents 
that  stage  in  the  history  of  the  liturgy,  in  which  the  minor  details 
surrounding  the  official  functions  and  prayers  of  the  Church 
blossomed  forth  into  a  wonderful  profuseness  and  variety  of 
forms.  The  intense  religious  fervor  of  those  ages  found  its 
expression  in  the  many  additions  that  were  constantly  being  made 
in  various  localities  to  the  existing  formulas  for  worship  pre- 
scribed by  the  Church. 

Far  from  disapproving  these  accretions  to  the  devotional  con- 
tent of  her  liturgy,  the  Church  encouraged  them  by  granting 
the   widest   liberties   in  adapting  and   increasing  the   previously 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  59 

sanctioned  forms  of  her  ceremonial.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to 
call  attention,  for  instance,  to  the  observations  made  by  Amalarius, 
who  is  perhaps  the  most  distinguished  liturgical  writer  of  the 
early  Middle  Ages  and  a  close  contemporary  of  Cynewulf  him- 
self .^°  In  presenting  the  O-Antiphons  in  the  order  followed  at 
Metz  in  his  time,  Amalarius  points  to  the  divergence  which  his 
Antiphonary  showed  from  that  of  the  Roman  Use.  He  was 
astonished  at  the  wide  discrepancy  in  liturgical  matters  between 
mother  and  daughter  church  (Rome  and  Metz),  saying :^^ 

Quae  memorata  volumina  contuli  cum  nostris  Antiphon- 
ariis,  invenique  ea  discrepare  a  nostris  non  solum  in  ordine, 
verum  etiam  in  verbis  et  multitudine  responsoriorum  et 
antiphonarum,  quas  nos  non  cantamus.  Nam  in  multis 
rationabilius  statuta  reperi  nostra  volumina  quam  essent  ilia 
Mirabar  quomodo  factum  sit  quod  mater  et  filia  tantum  a  se 
discreparent. 

The  same  early  liturgiologist  records  documentary  proof  of  the 
liberties  granted  in  particular  to  the  English  Church.  For,  as  a 
justification  of  the  liberties  which  he  had  himself  taken  in  ar- 
ranging the  Antiphonary  for  the  cathedral  church  of  Metz,  he 
quotes  the  famous  correspondence  between  Pope  Gregory  the 
Great  and  Augustine  of  England.^^  St.  Augustine  inquired  of 
the  PontiflF : 

Cum  una  sit  fides  sunt  Ecclesiarum  diversae  consuetudines, 
et  altera  consuetudo  missarum  in  Romana  Ecclesia,  atque 
altera  in  Gallia  tenetur. 

Pope  Gregory  replied: 

Novit  fraternitas  tua  Romanae  Ecclesiae  consuetudinem 
in  qua  se  meminit  nutritam;  sed  mihi  placet  ut  sive  in 
Romana,  sive  in  Galliarum,  seu  in  qualibet  Ecclesia  aliquid 
invenisti  quod  plus  omnipotenti  Deo  possit  placere,  sollicite 
eligas,  et  in  Anglorum  Ecclesia,  quae  adhuc  ad  fidem  nova 
est,  institutione  praecipua,  quae  de  multis  Ecclesiis  colligere 
potuisti,  infundas ;  non  enim  pro  locis  res,  sed  pro  bonis 
rebus  loca  amanda  sunt.  Ex  singulis  ergo  quibusque  Ecclesiis 
quae  pia,  quae  religiosa,  quae  recta  sunt  elige,  et  haec  quasi 
in  fasciculum  collecta,  apud  Anglorum  mentes  in  consuetud- 
inem depone. 

^''Amalarius  wrote  in  820. 

"£>£>  Ordine  Antiphonarii,  in  Migne.  P.  L.,  105,  1243. 

"  Ibid.,  1244  f . — This  correspondence  is  said  by  Amalarius  to  be  recorded 
in  the  Historic  Anglorum,  book  i.  chapter  v.  Just  what  history  is  here 
meant  has  apparently  never  been  ascertained. 


60  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST   I. 

By  the  time  that  Cynewulf  as  a  monk  or  a  priest  had  become 
acquainted  with  the  liturgy  of  the  English  Church,  such  indults 
granted  by  the  Pope  could  have  resulted  in  a  specifically  English 
Antiphonary  as  rich  and  varied  in  content  as  any  contained  in  the 
churches  of  the  Continent.  For  it  is  remarkable  that  in  his  early 
day  Cynewulf  shows  a  knowledge  of  all  the  Greater  Antiphons 
(except  perhaps  of  the  0  Gabriel)  that  are  found  in  the  An- 
tiphonary of  Hartker,  a  manuscript  of  the  monastery  of  St. 
Gall,  which  is  assigned  by  Dom  Mocquereau  to  the  late  tenth 
or  early  eleventh  century.^^  Yet,  the  "consuetudo"  which  Pope 
Gregory  wished  to  see  established  in  England  may  easily  account 
for  variations  in  the  minor  details  of  the  Office,  such  as  a  slight 
difference  in  the  order  of  the  O-Antiphons  would  imply.  Even 
if  the  Antiphonaries  of  the  Continent  were  faithfully  copied  in 
the  monasteries  and  cathedral  churches  of  England,  their  own 
"consuetudo"  might  justify  any  local  adaptations  of  the  copied 
books  as  more  suitable  to  their  needs  and  customs. 

While  these  few  general  observations  on  the  adaptability  of 
the  antiphonal  list  of  Greater  Antiphons  for  local  use,  and  on  the 
wide  liberties  enjoyed  in  liturgical  matters  by  the  mediaeval 
Church,  would  seem  to  modify  to  a  great  extent  the  charge  of 
wilfulness  (or  is  it  a  compliment  to  his  originality?)  on  the 
part  of  Cynewulf  in  the  employment  of  his  sources,  a  more 
detailed  account  of  the  particular  sources  used  by  him  should 
lead  us  to  more  definite  conclusions.  The  sources  of  the  twelve 
divisions  in  Christ  I  fall  into  three  classes,  the  seven  Great  O's, 
the  Added  or  Monastic  O's,  and  the  other  sources  which  do  not 
belong  to  any  set  of  Greater  Antiphons.  This  distinction  in  the 
sources  will  aid  in  acquiring  a  clearer  conception  of  their  dis- 
tinctive uses  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  render  their  com- 
parison with  the  material  in  Christ  I  more  fruitful. 


.  "  Liturgical  writers  of  the  present  day  unfortunately  do  not  take  suf- 
ficient account  of  the  evidences  furnished  by  the  study  of  the  literary 
remains  of  Old  England.  In  many  instances  they  still  rely  solely  upon 
the  inaccurate  statements  so  often  found  in  mediaeval  writers.  Thus,  for 
example,  they  continue  to  dispute  over  the  possible  date  of  the  0  mundi 
Domma,  when  as  early  as  the  eighth  century  Cynewulf  is  known  to  have 
used  it.  The  common  error  of  placing  the  O  Thomu  Didyme  in  date  of 
composition  in  the  thirteenth  century,  is  persistently  carried  on,  though 
this  Antiphon  is  referred  to  on  page  7  of  Hartker's  Antiphonary  of  the 
tenth  century.  (Cf.  for  this  error,  Dom  Gueranger,  The  Liturgical  Year, 
"Advent,"  p.  508;  Everard  Green,  in  Archceologia,  xlix.  227;  Cook,  p. 
xxxvii;  and  others.) 


on  the  antiphonary.  6] 

2.    The  Seven  Universal  O's 

By  the  ''Seven  Universal  O's"  we  mean  the  seven  Greater 
Antiphons  which  have  always  been  in  universal  use  in  the  Church, 
wherever  the  Roman  Use  was  followed.  They  are  first  found 
in  the  Liber  Responsalis  ^*  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  and  are  now 
alone  retained  in  the  Roman  Breviary  as  reformed  by  Pope  Pius 
V.  and  enjoined  in  his  Bull  Quod  a  nobis  postulat  of  July  9,  1568. 
In  the  Breviary  of  today  these  seven  O's  follow  in  the  order  in 
which  they  are  found  in  the  Liber  Responsalis,  and  they  are :  O 
Sapientia,  O  Adonai,  O  Radix  Jesse,  O  Clavis  David,  O  Oriens, 
O  Rex  gentium,  and  O  Emmanuel. 

These  have  accordingly  been  called  the  "O's  of  the  Pian 
Breviary,"  ^^  but  it  is  not  quite  correct  to  refer  to  them  as  the 
"Seven  Gregorian  O's,"  for  St.  Gregory,  in  his  Liber  Responsalis, 
clearly  enumerates  eight  Antiphons  beginning  with  "O,"  viz.,  the 
seven  now  retained  as  mentioned  above,  and  the  O  Virgo  vir- 
ginmn}^  It  is  true  that  after  the  time  of  Gregory  we  find  these 
mentioned  as  contained  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Metz ;  ^^  they  are 
the  first  eight  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  in  the  Codices 
Forojulienses,^^  in  the  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and  Toledo  of 
the  twelfth  century  ^*  (but  with  a  slightly  different  order),  in  the 
Sarum  Use,^^  in  the  Aberdeen  Breviary  of  1508,^^  in  the  Leofric 
Collectar,^^  etc. 


"  In  Migne,  P.  L.,  78,  732  f . 

"  Cf.  Green,  Archcsologia,  xlix,  221. 

"Migne,  P.  L.,  78,  732. — Odericus  {Ordo  Officiorum  Bed.  Senensis,  ed. 
Trombelli,  pp.  19;  f.),  writing  in  1213,  states  that  the  seven  O's  alone  are 
found  in  the  Antiphonary  of  St.  Gregory,  has  tantutn  septem  posuit 
Gregorius  in  antiphonario.  Either  he  had  in  mind  an  Antiphonary 
different  from  the  one  that  has  come  down  to  us,  or  he  committed  an 
error.  If  it  is  an  error,  writers  have  certainly  been  persistent  in  propa- 
gating it. — In  the  present  Breviary  the  O  Virgo  virginum  is;  omitted  from 
the  list  of  Advent  O's,  but  retained  ^or  the  feast  of  The  Expectation  of 
the  Delivery  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  December  18,  wherever  this  feast  is 
observed, 
eight  O's  in  almost  all  Antiphonaries  and  Breviaries.     They  are 

"  Amalarius,  De  Ordine  Aptiphonarii,  Migne,  P.  L.,  105,  1267  ff. 

"De  Rubeis,  Dissertationes  Duae,  Venice,  1754,  p.  453;  quoted  by  Green 
in  ArchcBologia,  xHx,  225. 

"  Published  in  Paleographie  Musicale,  ix.  27. 

^  Breviarium  ad  Usum  Sarum,  ed.  by  Proctor  and  Wordsworth,  1882. 

^  Breuiariutn   Aberdonense,   ed.   by  W.   Blew    for  the   Maitland    Club, 
London,  1854,  vol.  ii. 

*^  The  Leofric  Collectar,  ed.  by  E.  S-  Dewick  for  the  Bradshaw  Society, 
London,  1914,  i.  fol.  lOV 


62  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST   I. 

We  should  therefore  speak  of  the  ''Eight  Gregorian  O's,"  for 
they  seem  to  have  come  into  general  use  after  the  time  of  Greg- 
ory. Yet,  since  the  O  Virgo  virginum  was  always  used  more  or 
less  distinctly  as  an  ''additional  O,"  ^^  sometimes  only  on  the  feast 
of  the  Annunciation  and  subsequently  on  the  feast  of  the  Expec- 
tation, we  shall  assign  it  to  the  following  discussion  of  the  Added 
or  Monastic  O's.  Nevertheless,  it  stands  as  a  "Gregorian  O" 
from  the  time  of  St.  Gregory  to  the  reform  of  Pius  V.  In  adopt- 
ing for  the  seven  Great  O's  the  collective  term  "The  Seven 
Universal  O's,"  we  do  not  feel  guilty  of  violating  justice  towards 
the  great  Pope  St.  Gregory,  for  we  have  no  evidence  that  these 
seven  Greater  Antiphons  originated  with  him,  though  he  appears 
to  have  been  the  first  to  give  them  official  sanction  by  receiving 
them  into  his  Antiphonary.  They  may  be  of  more  ancient  date 
than  we  would  suspect. 

The  order  which  the  seven  Universal  O's  most  commonly 
take  in  the  various  Antiphonaries  is  the  one  given  them  by  St. 
Gregory  and  retained  in  the  Pian  Breviary.  There  seems  to  be 
no  inherent  reason  for  this  particular  order.  Just  what  deter- 
mined it  we  do  not  know.  But  some  vigilant  observers  have 
pointed  out  that  the  seven  O's  in  the  Gregorian  order  form  an 
acrostic  if  taken  inversely.  That  is,  if  the  initial  letters  of  the 
titles  following  the  word  "O"  are  read  upward,  we  obtain  the 
words  Ero  eras.  Everard  Green  2*  remarks  that  this  acrostic 
gives  no  little  coloring  to  the  words  eras  and  erastina  which  occur 
eighteen  times  in  the  services  for  the  Vigil  of  Christmas  in  the 
Roman  Breviary.  And  Thurston  ^^  says  in  answer  to  the  question 
whether  or  not  this  acrostic  can  be  considered  intentional : 

Considering  the  popularity  of  all  kinds  of  acrostics  with 
such  early  ecclesiastical  writers  as  Ennodius,  Sedulius,  and 
other  poets,  I  am  tempted  to  believe  that  the  effect  may  very 
probably  have  been  designed,  and  seeing  that  the  Roman 
Liher  Responsalis  and  Breviary  have  always  preserved  this 
order,  the  coincidence  ought  to  count  for  something  in  favor 
of  the  hypothesis  that  the  antiphons  are  of  Roman  origin 
and  early  date. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  such  tricks  of  language  as  shown  in 
the  acrostic  connected  with  the  O's  are  in  keeping  with  the  spirit 

^Amalarius  expressly  calls  it  an  "added"  O;  cf.  Migne,  P.  L.,  105,  1269. 

^  Archcsdiogia,  xlix.  223,  note. 

^  "The  Great  Antiphons :   Heralds  of  Christmas,"  in  The  Month,  cvi.  625. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  63 

of  the  early  Middle  Ages,  and  that  their  influence  was  carried 
even  into  the  liturgy  of  the  Church.  But  no  ecclesiastical  writer 
of  that  age  is  known  to  have  pointed  out  the  acrostic  in  question. 
Still,  allowing  for  the  possibility  of  such  an  influence  in  the 
present  arrangement  of  the  Greater  x\ntiphons,  it  proves  all  the 
more  clearly  that  there  was  no  deeper  and  inherent  foundation 
for  the  order  of  succession  given  to  them  in  the  Antiphonary. 
If  that  order  had  depended  merely  upon  such  external  coinci- 
dences as  an  acrostic,^^  the  various  churches  could  more  freely 
follow  their  own  customs  in  re-arranging  the  list  of  O's  in  their 
actual  chanting  to  suit  the  peculiar  local  exigencies. 

Another  influence  upon  the  arrangement  of  the  Advent  O's  in 
the  Antiphonary  might  be  sought  in  the  mystical  interpretations 
that  were  commonly  put  upon  them  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is 
found  that,  again  in  the  spirit  of  the  age,  a  symbolical  meaning 
was  usually  attached  to  nearly  everything  connected  with  the 
liturgy,  extending,  in  the  matter  of  the  O's,  to  their  number  as 
well  as  to  their  order  of  succession  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  to  be  chanted  and  intoned  in  the  Office.  But  in  every 
case,  I  believe,  it  will  be  found  that  these  interpretations  were  a 
later  introduction,  and  that  they  followed  after  the  particular 
number,  order,  or  manner  of  Church  use  had  been  determined 
in  the  various  localities.  Thus  Amalarius,^^  after  giving  the 
variant  order  in  use  at  Metz,  brings  the  seven  Universal  O's  in 
connection  with  the  seven  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  enumerated 
in  Isaias,  xi.  2,  3.  Honorius  of  Autun,^®  writing  in  the  twelfth 
century,  follows  the  usual  Gregorian  order,  but  he,  too,  makes  the 
seven  O's  agree  with  the  seven  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
order  given  by  Isaias.  In  either  case  the  application  appears 
strained  and  was  plainly  made  to  cover  an  existing  arrangement 
in  the  order  of  the  Advent  O's. 


^  In  explanation  of  the  peculiar  order  of  the  sources  in  Christ  I  it  might 
be  thought  that  Cynewulf  himself  had  possibly  been  influenced  by  a  desire 
to  form  a  similar  acrostic  with  the  opening  words  of  his  paraphrases.  In 
this  connection  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  six  divisions  preceding  the 
Passus  give  the  acrostic  gewyrc  thus:  Cyninge  (line  1),  ^eccend  (line 
18),  Ferusalem  (for  Hierusalem,  line  50),  PFifa  wynn  (line  71),  Earendel 
(line  104),  Csesta  (jod  (line  130).  It  is  not  clear,  however,  what  the  poet 
could  imply  by  gewyrc,  unless  the  missing  portion  of  the  poem  offered  an 
illuminating  addition  to  the  word. 

"Migne,  P.  L.,  105,  1267. 

^  Gemma  Animae,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  172,  644. 


64  th:e  dependence  of  christ  i. 

But  the  actual  Church  use  of  the  Greater  Antiphons  is  gathered 
more  definitely  from  the  Antiphonaries  themselves.  On  page  57 
above  I  have  pointed  out  an  instance  in  the  Antiphonary  of 
Hartker,.  in  which  the  Antiphon  0  Oriens  seems  to  be  attached 
to  the  last  Sunday  of  Advent,  despite  the  strict  order  of  suc- 
cession given  in  the  list  of  the  O's  in  the  same  Antiphonary. 
Yet  we  have  two  Antiphonaries,  at  least,  in  which  even  the  list 
of  the  seven  Universal  O's  is  slightly  different  from  that  of  the 
Liber  Responsalis.  They  are  the  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and 
Toledo,  both  of  the  twelfth  century. ^^  In  these  two  manuscripts  ^® 
the  order  of  the  Advent  O's  is  as  follows:  (1)  O  Sapientia;  (2) 
O  Adonai;  (3)  O  Radix  Jesse;  (4)  O  Clavis  David;  (5)  O  Rex 
gentium;  (6)  O  Emmanuel;  (7)  O  Oriens;  (8)  O  Virgo  vir- 
ginum;  (9)  In  natali  Si.  Thomae  apostoli,  O  Thoma  Didyme. 

Here  we  have  two  cases  of  Continental  Benedictine  use,  in 
which  one  of  the  seven  Universal  O's  was  taken  out  of  its 
customary  place.  It  is  the  Antiphon  O  Oriens  which,  instead  of 
preceding  the  O  Rex  gentium  and  the  O  Emmanuel,  follows  them. 
Whether  this  practice  of  permitting  variations  in  the  order  of 
the  O-Antiphons  was  multiplied  throughout  the  vast  Benedictine 
Order  of  those  days,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  Perhaps, 
with  the  publication  of  further  hidden  codices,  new  evidences  of 
such  a  procedure  will  be  brought  to  light.  At  any  rate,  these 
two  instances  show  that,  besides  the  classical  inversion  of  the 
Gregorian  order  in  the  O  's  reported  by  Amalarius  from  Metz, 
evidences  of  occasional  minor  changes  in  the  succession  of  Ad- 
vent O's  are  not  altogether  wanting.  Indeed,  such  a  radical 
difference  as  the  Antiphonary  of  Metz  discloses  may  never  be 
found  in  England ;  but  customs  affecting  minor  differences  in 
the  use  and  order  of  the  O-Antiphons  may  easily  have  found 
their  way  from  the  monasteries  of  Italy,  Spain,  or  Austria,  into 
Northumbria. 

If  we  compare  the  order  of  the  seven  Universal  O's  as  found 
in  Christ  I  with  the  order  laid  down  in  the  Liher  Responsalis, 
that  is,  with  the  standard  order  of  O's,  we  observe  that  Cynewulf 


^  Antiphonaire  Monastique  (XIP  siecle)  :  Codex  601  de  la  Biblio- 
theque  Capitulaire  de  Lucques.  Published  in  Paleographie  Musicale,  vol. 
ix.  (1906).— The  Antiphonary  of  Toledo  ("Codex  48.14  Bibl.  de  la 
Cathedrale  de  Tolede")  is  identical  with  that  of  Lucca,  being  also  of  Italian 


origin. 
»"  P.  27. 


ON  the:  antiphonary.  65 

allows  merely  a  slight  inversion,  such  as  the  Antiphonaries  of 
Lucca  and  Toledo  disclose.  In  Christ  I  only  one  of  the  seven 
Universal  O's  is  wrenched  from  its  fixed  place  in  Gregory's 
Antiphonary.  It  is  the  Antiphon  O  Rex  gentium  which,  instead 
of  following  the  O  Clavis  and  O  Oriens,  precedes  them.  In  the 
following  table  the  various  arrangements  of  the  seven  Universal 
O's  are  placed  side  by  side : 

Liher  Responsalis.      Amalarius.    Lucca  &  Toledo.     Christ  L 

I.  O  Sapientia  O  Sapientia  O  Sapientia       O  Sapientia 

II.  O  Adonai  O  Clavis  O  Adonai  O  Adonai 

III.  O  Radix  O  Emmanuel  O  Radix  O  Radix 

IV.  O  Clavis  O  Radix  O  Clavis  O  Rex  gentium 
V.  O  Oriens  O  Oriens  O  Rex  gentium  O  Clavis 

VI.  O  Rex  gentium  O  Adonai  O  Emmanuel    O  Oriens 

VII.  O  Emmanuel     O  Rex  gentium  O  Oriens  O  Emmanuel 

With  the  acrostic  ero  eras  in  mind,  it  will  be  easy  to  detect  the 
differences  in  the  order  maintained  by  Amalarius,  the  Antiphon- 
aries of  Lucca  and  Toledo,  and  Christ  I.  While  the  order  given 
by  Amalarius  is  helter-skelter  in  comparison  with  the  standard 
order  of  the  Liber  Responsalis,  that  of  both  the  Antiphonaries  of 
Lucca  and  Toledo  and  Christ  I  needs  the  adjustment  of  but  a 
single  Antiphon.  In  the  first  instance  it  is  the  O  Oriens,  in  the 
latter  the  0  Rex  gentium.  Wherefore,  we  cannot  avoid  a  strong 
suspicion  that  Cynewulf  knew  and  used  an  Antiphonary  with 
just  a  slight  disarrangement  in  the  Advent  O's,  such  as  the 
Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and  Toledo  display.  The  possible  objec- 
tion, that  four  centuries  intervened  between  Cynewulf  and  the 
two  Continental  Antiphonaries  here  adduced,  loses  much  of  its 
weight  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  at  least  two  centuries  also 
separate  the  Liber  Responsalis  from  the  writing  of  the  Christ. 
There  was  ample  time  for  the  introduction  of  minor  changes  in 
the  liturgy.  Moreover,  if  the  monastic  use  in  Italy  shows  varia- 
tions in  the  order  of  the  O-Antiphons,  the  monastic  use  in  Eng- 
land could  do  the  same.  It  is  now  well  established  that  the  mon- 
asteries of  Northern  England  stood  in  lively  communication  with 
those  of  the  Continent,  including  Italy. 

It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  my  study  to  inquire  into  the  full 
Church  use  connected  with  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent,  as 
manifested  in  their  particular  number,  their  day  of  inception  in 


66  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

the  Divine  Office,  their  manner  of  being  intoned  by  various 
Church  dignitaries,  and  similar  phases  of  the  subject.  This 
Church  use  is  here  considered  solely  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
order  of  succession  in  which  the  O's  were  taken.  And  while, 
even  in  this  particular  as  affecting  especially  the  seven  Universal 
O's,  the  Antiphonaries  present  but  limited  evidence,  the  evidence 
at  hand  does  point  out  some  definite  facts  bearing  on  the  use  of 
the  seven  O's  in  the  Office  of  the  Church.  It  shows  that  the  list 
of  O-Antiphons  was  adapted  to  various  uses;  that  the  directions 
given  in  the  Antiphonaries  themselves  apparently  contradict  the 
strict  sequence  of  Antiphons  maintained  in  the  list  (as  in  the 
case  of  the  O  Oriens  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker)  ;  that  slight 
variations  in  the  order  of  the  seven  Universal  O's  themselves  did 
exist  (as  shown  by  the  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and  Toledo). 
There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  inherent  reason  for  the  par- 
ticular order  given  in  the  Liber  Responsalis,  and  nowhere  is  an 
official  statement  found  commanding  any  particular  order  in  the 
use  of  the  Greater  Antiphons. 

From  all  this  it  would  appear  to  verge  on  presumption,  if  we 
denied  the  possibility  of  a  knowledge,  on  the  part  of  Cynewulf, 
of  any  but  the  standard  order  of  O's  found  in  Gregory's  An- 
tiphonary. He  may  well  have  known  and  used  an  Antiphonary 
that  presented  the  Universal  O's  in  the  very  order  of  their  suc- 
cession in  Christ  I.  In  fact,  his  order  in  the  poem  might  even 
argue  for  the  Antiphonary  constructed  on  the  same  plan.  But 
had  he  followed  the  standard  Antiphonary  of  the  Roman  use, 
the  customs  prevailing  in  his  particular  church  or  monastery 
could  still  account  for  a  slight  difference  in  the  actual  chanting 
of  the  O's.  That  Cynewulf  appears  rather  to  have  used  his 
sources,  not  as  they  are  contained  in  the  service  books,  but  as 
they  are  taken  in  the  Divine  Office,  will  become  clearer  in  the 
discussion  of  the  Added  O's  and  other  sources  of  Christ  I. 

3.  The  Added  or  Monastic  O's 

In  addition  to  the  seven  Universal  O's,  other  Antiphons,  con- 
structed on  the  same  plan  as  these,  came  into  use  from  very 
early  times,  as  the  poem  of  the  Christ  itself  shows.     Of  these 
additional  O-Antiphons  Tommasi  ^^  says :    An  Monachorum  sint 
"  Opera  omnia,  ed.  Vezzosi.  iv.  182,  note  1. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  67 

additamenta,  ignoro,  and  Cook  ^^  remarks  on  this  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  best  authorities,  they  are  of  monastic  origin, 
adding : 

This  is  quite  in  consonance  with  the  historic  fact  that  the 
development  of  the  Hturgy  was  in  large  measure  due  to  the 
monks  (see  Batififol,  chaps,  i  and  ii).  The  arch-cantor  John, 
whom  Benedict  Biscop  brought  into  England,  was,  it  will 
be  remembered,  abbot  of  St.  Martin's  monastery  at  Rome 
(Bede  4.  18).  We  shall  not  be  far  astray,  I  believe,  if  we 
suppose  these  four  Antiphons  to  be  of  Benedictine  origin. 

We  have  therefore  called  these  Antiphons  the  Added  or  Mon- 
astic O's,  in  contrast  to  the  seven  Universal  O's.  Cook  "^  also 
uses  the  term  "occasional  Antiphons"  to  designate  these  O's. 
This  is  quite  apt,  for,  as  distinguished  from  the  Universal  O's, 
they  were  limited  in  their  use  to  individual  churches,  mostly 
monastic,  and  even  in  the  Office  itself,  it  will  be  seen  presently, 
they  were  often  employed  for  special  occasions  only,  not  being 
assigned  to  certain  fixed  days  as  were  the  seven  Universal  O's. 

If  we  examine  the  lists  of  the  Advent  O's  in  the  Antiphonaries, 
we  observe  that  wherever  any  Antiphons  were  used  in  addition 
to  the  seven  Universal  O's,  these  were  invariably  treated  as  ad- 
ditions. That  means,  they  always  followed  the  seven  O's,  no 
matter  how  many  of  them  were  added.  In  this  respect  they 
appear  to  have  the  same  fixed  order  as  the  seven  Universal  O's 
present.  But  it  would  not  be  in  harmony  with  actual  Church  use, 
if  we  were  to  infer  that  the  Added  or  Monastic  O's  were  always 
chanted  after  the  seven  Universal  O's  had  been  finished  in  the 
Divine  Office.  No  doubt  they  were  thus  used  in  some  churches 
in  which  the  singing  of  the  Advent  O's  began  early  enough  to 
allow  each  of  the  Added  O's  a  separate  day  in  the  kalendar.^* 

But  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  chanting  of  the  Advent  O's 
did  not  begin  until  eight  days  or  an  Octave  before  Christmas, 
even  though  as  many  as  twelve  O's  might  be  assigned  to  the 
Office   of    that   preparatory   week.      Thus   the    Antiphonary   of 


"  P.  xxxix  f.,  note  6. 

^  Pp.  81,  100,  103,  and  passim. 

'*  Thus,  according  to  Green  (Archceologia,  xlix.  221),  the  singing  of  the 
Greater  Antiphons  began  as  early  as  December  13  at  Cividale  del  Friuli, 
Aquileia,  Siena,  Liege,  Salzburg,  Ratisbon,  Bamberg,  Augsburg,  Constance, 
and  Freising.  To  this  list  Grotefend  (Zeitrechnung,  i.  140)  adds  Cammin 
and  Gnesen. 


68  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHfclST   I. 

Hartker,^^  which  has  twelve  Greater  Antiphons,  puts  them  all 
in  the  last  week  preceding  the  feast  of  the  Nativity :  In  proxima 
Bbdomada  Nat.  Dni.  ad  Uesp.  This  would  leave  room  only  for 
the  seven  Universal  O's  as  Antiphons  of  the  Magnificat.  We 
must  conclude  from  this  that  the  Added  or  Monastic  O's  were 
used  extensively  for  purposes  other  than  the  Antiphons  proper 
of  the  Magnificat  in  Vespers,  that  they  must  have  found  a  place 
outside  the  strictly  liturgical  Office  as  Antiphons  for  special 
services  or  occasions. 

Indeed,  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  itself  gives  us  a  clue  to 
the  practices  surrounding  the  use  of  the  Added  O's  in  the  medi- 
aeval Church.  On  page  57  above  we  have  reproduced  several 
directions  found  in  this  Antiphonary  and  relating  to  the  Antiphons 
O  Hierusalem,  0  mundi  Domina,  and  0  Virgo  virginum.  In 
each  case  it  will  be  seen  that  they  were  used  for  a  service  other 
than  that  indicated  for  the  seven  Universal  O's,  being  assigned 
to  the  service  following  the  Magnificat  and  its  regular  appointed 
Antiphon.  This  service  is  here  referred  to  as  ad  crucem.  As  a 
rule,  the  seven  Universal  O's  were  not  assigned  to  this  service.^® 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Added  O's  were  plainly  suited  for  this 
purpose.  In  fact,  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  have  originated 
in  the  service  designated  ad  crucem.  But  before  we  proceed  in 
our  discussion,  a  word  of  explanation  regarding  the  rubric  ad 
crucem  is  necessary. 

The  rubric  ad  crucem  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  refers 
to  the  commemorations  made  in  Lauds  after  the  Bene  diet  us,  and 
in  Vespers  after  the  Magnificat.  In  the  English  use  these  An- 
tiphons with  accompanying  prayers  are  called  "memorials,"  and 

^'P.  40.— Gueranger,  The  Liturgical  Year,  "Advent,"  pp.  508-531,  ar- 
ranges twelve  O-Antiphons  for  the  last  week  preceding  Christmas.  But 
in  his  distribution  of  these  Antiphons  he  merely  inserts  the  Added  O's  in 
their  regular  order  between  the  seven  Universal  O's,  yet  forgets  the  O 
mundi  Domina  in  his  scheme.  His  arrangement  is  not  intended  as  a 
definitely  established  one,  serving  merely  the  purpose  of  a  devotional 
treatise.  He  himself  says  (page  514)  that  details  belonging  strictly  to  the 
archaeology  of  Liturgy  do  not  enter  into  the  plan  of  his  work. 

^®  Green  (Archceologia,  xlix,  227),  in  a  note,  refers  to  Thomasius's 
Psalterium  cum  Canticis,  ed.  Blanchinius,  i.  518-521,  where  the  seven 
Universal  O's  are  said  to  be  incorporated  into  the  "Preces  ad  adorandam 
Crucem"  of  a  MS.  in  the  Vatican.  The  heading  there  is  said  to  be: 
"Incipiunt  Orationes  ad  Adorandam  Crucem ;  sive  ad  deposcenda  suffragia 
omnium  Sanctorum."  This  MS.,  in  the  opinion  of  Edmund  Bishop,  was 
written  in  the  great  Benedictine  Abbey  of  Reichenau,  on  the  Lake  of 
Constance.  Apparently,  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which  even  the  seven 
Universal  O's  are  assigned  to  the  service  ad  crucem. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  69 

they  were  always  chanted  after  the  regular  Antiphon  and  Prayer 
of  the  day  or  feast.  The  memorials  were  sometimes  called 
suffragia  omnium  sanctorum,  as  appears  from  the  reference  in 
the  Vatican  manuscript  quoted  above,  or  simply  suffragia.  In 
the  present  Roman  Breviary  they  are  called  commemorationes 
communes,  or  commemoratio  de  cruce.  The  term  ad  crucem, 
and  also  de  cruce,  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  a  memorial  of 
the  Holy  Cross  usually  preceded  the  other  memorials  in  honor 
of  Mary,  the  Apostles,  the  Patron  of  the  particular  church,  and 
for  the  peace  of  the  universal  Church.  In  the  Easter  time,  the 
period  from  Easter  Sunday  to  Trinity  Sunday,  this  memorial  of 
the  Cross  alone  is  made  in  the  Office  as  we  have  it  today.  Appar- 
ently it  was  also  the  custom  in  some  mediaeval  churches  to  per- 
form these  memorials  before  an  image  of  the  Cross,  whither 
those  attending  the  choir  proceeded  after  the  Prayer  of  the  day. 
This  practice  is  indicated  in  the  Ordo  of  Bernard  of  Cluny,*^ 
as  follows : 

Commemoratio  s.  Crucis  tunc  (sc.  in  Adventu)  dimittitur 
*  *  *  unde  et  post  Vesperos  regulares  non  ad  sanctam 
Crucem,  sed  ad  sanctam  Mariam  processio  agitur,  ad  quam 
R.  "Ave  Maria"  cantatur,  et  post  Matutinum  R.  "Ecce 
Virgo."     *     *     *     sicut  per  totum  Adventum. 

But  even  if,  as  here  directed,  the  ordinary  commemoration  of 
the  Cross  was  omitted  in  the  Advent  time,  and  a  special  memoriall 
in  honor  of  the  Virgin  Mary  taken  in  its  stead,  the  term  ad 
crucem  was  still  retained  for  this  service  in  some  of  the  codices. 
A  witness  to  this  is  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  as  quoted  above. 

Yet,  even  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  there  seiem  to  be  no 
memorials  during  the  Advent  season,  that  is,  before  the  Vigil 
of  Christmas.    In^this  respect  customs  must  have  differed  widely. 

The  Antiphonary  of  Lucca  adds,  after  the  Antiphons  in 
Bvangelio  on  the  first  Sunday  of  Advent,  an  Antiphon  ad  honorem 
S.  Mariae.  The  editor  of  this  Antiphonary,^^  in  the  Introduction 
to  the  photographic  facsimile,  declares  that  the  Antiphon  ad 
honorem  S.  Mariae  must  evidently  have  served  for  the  whole  of 
Advent.  In  this  connection  he  calls  attention  to  the  Roman 
Antiphonary  of  St.   Peter's  ^*  and  to  the  Ordo  Romanus  XI,*^ 

^  Ordo    Cluniac,   ed.    Hergott ;    pars    ii.    cap.    i.    283. — cf .    also   Consue- 
tudines  Farfenses,  ed.  B.  Albers,  1900;   Paleogr.  Musicale,  ix.  23. 
"  In  Paleographie  Musicale,  ix.  Intro.  23. 
*•  In  Tommasi,  Opera  Omnia,  iv.  22. 
^'Ed.  Migne,  P.  L.,  78,  1028. 


70  THE)  DEPENDENCE  O^   CHRIST  I. 

which  both  have  a  commemoration  of  the  same  kind,  but  for  the 
ferial  or  weekdays  of  Advent  only. 

In  some  places,  however,  the  usual  memorials  seem  to  have 
been  retained  even  during  the  season  of  Advent,  and  even  during 
the  period  in  which  the  O-Antiphons  were  chanted.  Archbishop 
John  of  Rouen  (eleventh  century)  gives  the  custom  of  the  Church 
of  the  Canons  Regular  of  St.  Laud  at  Rouen  thus :  ^^ 

Nonnulli  postquam  has  antiphonas  incoeperint,  prostra- 
tiones  et  preces  in  Vesperis  dimittunt;  a  nobis  vero  non 
dimittuntur,  sed  solitum  cursum  exsequimur. 

In  the  directions  for  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Rouen,  the  same 
author  is  more  explicit  when  he  says :  *^ 

Nono  die  nativitatem  Dbmini  praecedenti  cantari  incipi- 
antur  antiphonae  quae  per  "O"  inchoant,  quas  preces  non 
subsequantur,  non  tamen  commemorationes  dimittantur. 

It  appears  from  all  this  that  the  memorial  service  was  not  a 
universally  established  part  of  the  Divine  Office  for  the  Advent 
season,  and  wherever  they  were  admitted  to  the  Advent  Office 
as  usual,  allowances  must  still  be  made  for  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  performed.  A  memorial  in  honor  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
seems  to  have  been  most  prevalent.  But  the  one  thing  whi^h 
draws  our  interest  most  to  these  services  termed  ad  crucem, 
commemorationes,  or  in  honorem  S.  Mariae,  is  the  fact  that  the 
Added  O's  found  their  employment  in  this  part  of  the  Divine 
Office.  Hence,  in  endeavoring  to  understand  the  positions  of 
these  Added  O's  in  Christ  I,  we  must  allow  for  an  individual  use 
of  the  Antiphons  in  question  by  the  church  service  which  Cyne- 
wulf  is  supposed  to  have  followed.  Whatever  that  use  may  have 
been  cannot  be  determined  with  accuracy;  yet  it  is  plain  that 
the  Added  O's  were  more  liable  to  shifting  and  to  individual 
re-arrangement  than  even  the  seven  Universal  O's.  And  if, 
consequently,  we  find  them  in  a  certain  order  in  Christ  I.  the 
poet  need  not  necessarily  have  chosen  such  an  order  himself. 
He  may  well  have  followed  merely  the  particular  order  in  which 
he  was  acquainted  with  them. 


"Joannis  Archiep.  Rothomagensis  Ordinarium,  in  Migne,  P.  L-,  147,  159. 
"Joannis  Archiep.  Rothomagensis  Fragmenia  Quacdam,  Migne,  P.  L., 
147,  123. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  71 

The  four  Added  or  Monastic  O's  employed  by  Cynewulf  in 
Christ  I  are :  O  Hierusalem,  O  Virgo  virginum,  O  Rex  Pacifice. 
and  O  mtmdi  Domina.  Some  customs  surrounding  these  O's 
individually  may  be  noted  in  order  to  shed  additional  light  upon 
the  possible  order  in  which  they  were  employed  in  the  mediaeval 
Church. 

(1)  The  Added  Antiphon  O  Hierusalem  appears  to  be  a  purely 
monastic  "O,"  for  it  is  found  only  where  the  complete  set  of 
twelve  Greater  Antiphons  was  used.  It  is  contained  in  the  tenth 
century  manuscript  of  St.  Gall,  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  and, 
according  to  Green,*^  also  in  the  Codices  Forojulienses.  In  the 
Antiphonary  of  Hartker  it  is  restricted  to  the  service  ad  crucem, 
being  assigned  therein  to  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity.  It  is  the 
only  mention  of  the  O  Hierusalem  made  in  this  Antiphonary;  it 
is  the  only  rubric  which  I  could  find  anywhere  relating  to  this 
Antiphon. 

In  connection  with  the  Antiphon  O  Hierusalem  it  might  be 
well  to  recall  that  one  of  the  Advent  Sundays,  usually  the  second,** 
was  devoted  particularly  to  the  praise  of  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city 
of  God's  chosen  people.  This  may  have  led  to  the  singing  on 
this  Sunday,  or  on  some  other  day  in  Advent,  of  a  separate 
Great  Antiphon  to  the  civitas  Dei  summi.  The  use  of  this  Added 
O  is  therefore  indefinite  and  was  undoubtedly  a  matter  of  indi- 
vidual choice. 

(2)  The  Antiphon  0  Virgo  virginum  is  the  earliest  of  the 
Added  O's.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  gives  it  the  eighth  place 
among  the  Advent  O's  in  his  Liher  Responsalis.*^  ■  This  place  it 
has  with  few  exceptions  kept  wherever  it  was  included  in  the 
list  of  Greater  Antiphons.*^     Amalarius  *''  treats  of  it  and  calls 

"  ArchcEologia,  xlix,  225. — Green  quotes  De  Rubeis,  Dissertationes  Duae, 
Venice,  1754,  p.  453. 

"In  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  (pp.  21-23)  the  Office  of  the  third 
Advent  Sunday  celebrates  the  city  of  Jerusalem. — cf.  also  Cook,  pp. 
xxxiii  f. 

"When  therefore  Green  (ArchcBologia,  xlix,  224)  says  that  "at  Rome, 
the  O  Virgo  virginum  does  not  seem  to  have  found  a  place  in  her 
antiphonary  until  after  1286,  as  Durandus  makes  no  mention  of  it,"  he 
places  an  erroneous  deduction  from  the  omission  of  Durandus  above  the 
evidence  of  the  Liber  Responsalis. 

*^0f  this  Antiphon  Grotefend  (Zeitrechnung,  i.  140)  says:  "H?.r.figer 
gesellte  sich  ihnen  (d.h.,  den  sieben  Antiphonen),  theils  am  Anfang  (so 
in  Besangon),  theils  am  18.  (so  in  Spanien  am  Feste  der  "Annunciatio 
Marie  de  la  O"),  theils  am  Schluss  (so  in  Schwerin)  die  Antiphone  O 
Virgo  virginum  zu." 

*'  In  Migne,  P.  L-,  105,  1269. 


^2  THE  DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

it  an  *'added''  O.  Of  the  widespread  use  of  this  Antiphon  we 
have  spoken  above.  The  manner  in  which  it  was  used  is  perhaps 
the  most  varied  of  any  connected  with  the  Added  O's. 

In  the  beginning  the  O  Virgo  virginum  was  probably  used  as 
a  regular  Great  "O"  of  Advent,  taking  the  last  place  of  these  and 
thus  falling  either  on  the  Vigil  of  Christmas  itself  (December 
24)  or  on  the  *'super-vigil"  (December  23).  But  later  it  was 
used  for  the  feast  of  the  Annunciation  on  March  25,  as  attested 
by  the  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and  Toledo  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury.*® From  this  feast  it  was  then  naturally  transferred  to  the 
feast  of  the  Bxpectatio  Partus  or  Commemoratio  de  la  O  of  De- 
cember 18.  Yet  the  early  Antiphonaries  do  not  have  the  O  Virgo 
virginum  for  the  feast  of  the  Annunciation,*^  and  the  feast  of  the 
Expectation  was  then  as  yet  absent  from  the  kalendar  of  the 
Church.  At  that  early  time  the  O  Virgo  virginum  was  apparently 
limited  to  the  "commemoration"  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  Advent 
Office,  or  to  the  memorials.  In  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  it 
is  placed  as  a  memorial  Antiphon  in  the  Vespers  of  the  feast  of 
the  Holy  Innocents  (December  28),  and  this  is  the  only  disposi- 
tion made  of  it  in  this  Antiphonary. 

Another  use  of  the  0  Virgo  virginum  is  pointed  out  by  Green. 
He  informs  us  ^^  that,  in  the  Dominican  Breviary,  this  Antiphon 
occurs  in  the  Officium  Parvum  and  in  the  Saturday  Votive  Office 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin  for  the  whole  season  of  Advent.  In  the 
Roman  and  Benedictine  Breviaries  of  today  this  Antiphon  does 
not  appear  in  this  service,  nor  do  we  find  it  in  the  "Horae  Beatae 
Mariae  Virginis  secundum  Usum  Sarum,"  or  the  English 
"Prymer."  " 

Grancolas  ^^  puts  the  O  Virgo  virginum  in  the  Office  of  De- 
cember 23,  and  mentions  these  ceremonies  connected  with  its 
chanting : 

**P.  348.— cf.  also  the  York  Breviary,  ed.  Lawley,  ii.  243. 

"  The  O  Virgo  virginum  is  not  contained  in  the  Mozarabic  Rite  for 
December  18  (see  Migne,  P.  L.,  86,  1290),  nor  is  it  found  in  the  "Proprium 
Ss.  Tolet.  Eccl."  of  1819.  For  this  information  I  am  indebted  to  Rev. 
F.  G.  Holweck,  who  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Antiphon  i^  not  of  Spanish 
but  of  Frankish  origin.  If  the  twelfth  century  MS.  of  Toledo  (Paleogr. 
Musicale,  vol.  ix)  contains  this  Antiphon,  it  must  be  remembered  that  this 
Antiphonary  of  Toledo  is  of  Italian  origin  and  identical  with  that  of 
Lucca. 

'"  Arch(£ologia,  xlix,  225,  note. 

"  Cf.  Maskell,  Monumenta  Ritualia,  vol.  ii. 

"  C ommentarius  historicus  in  Breviariuw,  Romanum,  Venice,  1734,  lib. 
ii.  cap.  xii. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  73 

In  pluribus  Ecclesiis  Natalis  supervigilio,  scilicet  23  De- 
cembris,  Vesperae  solemnes  erant  propter  Antiphonam  "O 
Virgo  virginum."  Campanae  praeterea  omnes  pulsabantur, 
albae  vestes,  et  incensum  adhibebantur. 

Whatever  the  various  uses  connected  with  the  Antiphon  O 
Virgo  virginum  may  have  been  in  the  course  of  centuries,  at 
the  time  of  Cynewulf  it  seems  to  have  been  restricted  to  its  regu- 
lar place  among  the  Advent  O's,  being  in  many  cases  sung  on 
December  23.^^  Yet,  that  the  service  ad  crucem  had  already  at 
an  early  time  claimed  a  special  place  for  this  Antiphon  is  borne 
out  by  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  which,  it  must  again  be 
recalled,  is  the  earliest  known  Antiphonary  containing  all  the 
O-Antiphons  employed  in  Christ  I.  Since  in  those  days  the  O 
Virgo  virginum  was  not  attached  to  any  special  feast,  as  the 
Annunciation  or  the  Expectation,  a  greater  freedom  in  its  use 
was  but  natural.  In  the  particular  use  with  which  Cynewulf 
was  acquainted,  it  may  have  well  been  chanted  on  any  day  pre- 
ceding or  immediately  following  Christmas  day  as  the  Antiphon 
for  a  memorial. 

(3)  The  Antiphon  O  Rex  Pacifice  is  as  obscure  as  the  O 
Hierusalem,  or  even  more  so.  It  was  apparently  likewise  re- 
stricted to  purely  monastic  use.  The  Antiphonary  of  Hartker, 
in  which  it  takes  the  tenth  place  in  the  list  of  Advent  O's,  makes 
no  further  mention  of  it,  and  still  the  general  directions  given 
therein  imply  that  all  the  Greater  Antiphons  were  to  be  sung 
within  the  last  week  of  Advent.^*  This  makes  it  necessary  for 
the  O  Rex  Pacifice  to  find*  its  place  somewhere  as  an  additional 
**0,"  as  for  instance  in  the  memorial  service  ad  crucem. 

The  address  of  the  Antiphon  would  seem  to  point  to  its  use  in 
the  first  Vespers  of  Christmas  (December  24),  or  in  a  special 
service  connected  with  these  Vespers.  The  Antiphonary  assigns 
the  following  Antiphons  to  the  Vesper  service  on  Christmas 
Eve :  =5 

"Cook  (p.  84)  assigns  the  0  Virgo  virginum  to  December  24.  but  he 
nowhere  shows  an  instance  in  which  it  was  used  on  that  day  (of.  p.  xxxix). 

"  The  first  reference  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  relating  to  the 
Greater  Antiphons  is  thej  rubric  on  page  31,  Ant.  O  Sap.  vel  de  illis  sicut 
evenerit  for  the  Magnificat  of  the  Saturday  preceding  the  last  Sunday 
before  Christmas.  The  Antiphons  are  thus  placed  within  the  last  week 
of  Advent. 

"Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  pp.  43  f. — c^.  The  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca 
and  Toledo,  p.  31. 


74  TH^  DEPENDENCE  O^  CHRIST  I. 

Ant.  Scitote  quia  prope  est  regnum  dei,  amen  dico  vobis  quia 

non  tardabit.   (first  Antiphon). 
Ant.  Rex  pacificus  magnificatus  est  cuius  vultum  desiderat 

universa  terra  (second  Antiphon). 
Ant.  Magnificatus  est  rtx  pacificus  super  omnes  reges  uni- 

versae  terrae  (third  Antiphon). 
Ant.  Dum  ortus  fuerit  sol  de  coelo  videbitis  regem  regum 

procedentem    a    matre    (sic!)    tanquam    sponsum    de 

thalamo  suo.  (the  Antiphon  for  the  Magnificat). 

In  this  Vesper  service,  it  will  be  seen,  Christ  is  glorified  in  a 
special  manner  as  the  King  of  Peace,  two  Antiphons  being  de- 
voted to  this  title  alone.  Another  Antiphon  speaks  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  while  the  Antiphon  for  the  Magnificat  pictures  Him 
as  the  King  of  Kings,  proceeding  in  his  temporal  birth  from  the 
hallowed  womb  of  his  Virgin  Mother. 

It  is  therefore  not  improbable  that  the  Antiphon  0  Rex  Pacifice 
was  used  in  the  service  ad  crucem  following  the  solemn  Vespers 
on  December  24,  or  some  other  time  on  the  Vigil  of  Christmas, 
as  the  peculiar  custom  may  have  determined. 

(4)  The  last  Added  *'0"  employed  by  Cynewulf  is  the  O 
mundi  Domina.  In  Hartker's  Antiphonary  ^'®  this  Antiphon  is 
assigned  to  the  service  ad  crucem  for  the  Vespers  of  Christmas 
day.  In  other  uses  it  was  chanted  on  the  Vigil,  or  Christmas 
Eve.  Thus  the  Leof  ric  Collectar  ^^  makes  it  the  Antiphon  proper 
of  the  Magnificat  on  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity.  But  it  was  also 
used  on  this  day  outside  the  Office  of  the  Vespers.  This  is  shov/n 
by  the  following  information  gathered  by  Green  ^^  in  his  paper 
on  the  O-Antiphons : 

As  regards  the  O  mundi  Domina,  which  was  sung  on 
Christmas  Eve,  called  in  most  Celtic  languages  the  ''Night 
of  Mary,"  ^^  the  old  rubric  at  Cividale  del  Friuli  in  Italy 
is  as  follows:  ''Exeat  Sacerdos  paratus  de  Sacristia,  can- 
tantibus  pueris,  et  ascendat  ad  imperium,  et  cantet  Evan- 
gelium,  scilicet  "Liber  Generationis."  Completo  Evangelio 
dicitur  antiph.  "O  mundi  Domina."  Finita  ant.  dicitur  statim 
"Te  Deum  laudamus."  ®^  This  was  also  the  custom  at  the 
Benedictine  Abbeys  of  S.  Germain  des  Pres,  S.  Vandrille  or 
Fontenelle,  and  S.  Pierre-sur-Dive.^^     In  place,  however,  of 

''.F.  52. 

"  Fol.  11*. 

''^  Archceologia,  xlix,  226   f. 

^^  Neale,  Essays  on  Liturgiology,  1867,  p.  511. 

^°  De  Rubeis,  Dissertationes  Duae,  Venice,  1754,  p.  478. 

""  Martene,  De  Antiquis  Monachorum  Ritihus,  lib.  ii.  cap.  iv.  paragr.  v. 


01^   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  75 

the  "O  mundi  Domina,"  the  antiphon  at  Bee,  Lyre,  Cluny, 
and  Corbie,  and  from  the  days  of  Lanfranc  at  Canterbury, 
and  by  all  those  "qui  statuta  Lanfranci  tenebant,"  was  "O 
Beata  Infantia."  ^^ 

From  all  that  has  been  said  of  the  Antiphon  O  mundi  Domina 
it  appears  that  this,  the  last  of  the  O's,  found  its  use  in  the 
immediate  preparation  for  the  feast  of  Christmas.  The  cere- 
monial followed  at  Cividale  del  Friuli,  at  S.  Germain  des  Pres, 
at  Fontenelle  and  S.  Pierre-sur-Dive,  places  it  in  a  special  service 
connected  with  the  solemn  Matins  of  Christmas.  This  custom 
must  have  been  more  prevalent  than  indicated  by  liturgical  writers, 
perhaps  even  spreading  over  to  England  and  becoming  established 
here  and  there  before  the  time  of  Lanfranc  (1089). 

From  the  records  we  have  of  these  Added  or  Monastic  O's 
employed  by  Cynewulf,  therefore,  it  is  apparent  that  they  were 
used  in  various  ways  by  the  different  churches  of  mediaeval 
Christianity.  The  outstanding  fact  is  that  they  are  additional 
O's,  and  the  various  uses  show  that  they  were  always  employed 
as  such,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  O  V-irgo  virginum. 
Being  chanted  in  various  services  not  strictly  liturgical,  and  on 
special  occasions,  local  variations  in  their  use  were  even  more 
marked  than  in  the  matter  of  the  seven  Universal  O's. 

But  here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  seven  Universal  O's,  we 
observe  only  one  displacement  of  the  regular  order  in  Cynewulf's 
poem.  Since  the  Added  O's  employed  in  Christ  I  are  first  found 
in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  of  the  tenth  century,  a  comparison 
of  their  order  of  succession  in  that  Antiphonary  with  the  order 
maintained  in  Christ  I  is  not  out  of  place : 

Antiphonary  of  Hartker.  Christ  I. 

1.  O  Virgo  virginum  1.  O  Hierusalem 
(O  Gabriel) 

2.  O  Rex  Pacifice  2.  O  Virgo  virginum 

3.  O  mundi  Domina  3.  O  Rex  Pacifice 

4.  O  Hierusalem  4.  O  mundi  Domina. 

By  omitting  the  O  Gabriel  (which  is  not  found  in  the  preserved 
portion  of  Christ  I),  it  is  apparent  that  Cynewulf  allowed  only 
one  change  in  the  position  of  his  Added  O's.  The  O  Hierusalem, 
instead  of  appearing  last,  is  taken  first.     Again,  as  in  the  case 


"Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  331. — The  quotations  are  all  Green's. 


76  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST  I. 

of  the  seven  Universal  O's,  it  is  here  possible  that  the  poet  knew 
and  used  an  Antiphonary  with  the  O  Hierusalem  in  the  first 
place;  or  he  used  the  usual  Monastic  Antiphonary  known  to  us, 
with  a  slight  variant  application  in  his  particular  church. 

4.  The  Remaining  Sources 

Of  the  twelve  divisions  in  Christ  I  four  are  not  based  upon  any 
of  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent  as  we  know  them  today. 
They  are  Divisions  VII,  X,  XI,  and  XII.  Division  VII  contains 
the  dialogue  between  Mary  and  Joseph  and  is  commonly  referred 
to  as  the  Passus  I  of  the  Christ,  or  simply  the  Passus  when  speak- 
ing of  Christ  I.  Division  X  is,  as  we  have  seen  in  discussing  its 
possible  source,  either  based  upon  an  unknown  Greater  Antiphon 
(which  can  hardly  be  assumed),  or  must  be  looked  upon  as 
forming  the  poet's  own  final  O-paraphrase.  Division  XI  is  the 
Doxology.  Division  XII  is  based  upon  an  Antiphon  of  the 
Christmas  Octave,  the  O  Admirabile  commercium.  The  sources 
of  these  four  divisions  will  here  be  considered  with  a  view  to 
establishing  the  precise  time  at  which  they  followed  in  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Divine  Office,  or  in  other  liturgical  functions. 

(1)  The  Passus  or  dialogue  between  Mary  and  Joseph  was 
seen  to  hold  a  unique  place  in  Christ  I.  Not  only  is  the  source 
for  it  foreign  to  the  Greater  Antiphons,  but  the  whole  construc- 
tion of  the  division  forming  it  is  different  from  that  of  the  other 
divisions  preceding  the  Doxology.  The  direct  and  immediate 
source  upon  which  the  poet  may  have  relied  for  the  construction 
of  this  dialogue  is  not  known  to  investigators  at  the  present 
time.  Yet,  in  its  general  theme,  the  Passus  undoubtedly  belongs 
to  the  Vigil  of  Christmas.  The  Gospel  extract  of  that  day, 
Matth.  i.  18-21,  is  the  ultimate  source  of  the  dialogue  in  Christ  I, 
for  it  treats  exclusively  of  the  perplexities  which  confronted  St. 
Joseph  when  he  found  Mary  to  be  with  child.  It  was  shown 
above  that  even  the  Antiphonary  contains  allusions  to  this  Gospel 
theme.  It  is  moreover  possible  that,  through  the  Office  in  use 
in  his  day  and  country,  Cynewulf  was  acquainted  with  one  or 
the  other  of  the  five  Homilies  from  the  Fathers  ^^  which  treat  the 
Gospel  extract  of  the  Vigil  in  the  very  form  of  a  dialogue  similar 

"^  Cook,  "A  Remote  Analogue  to  the  Miracle  Play,"  in  Journal  of  Ger- 
manic Philology,  iv.  421-451. 


ON    THIC   ANTIPHONARY.  77 

to  that  of  Christ  I.  If  these  homihes  were  unknown  to  the  poet, 
a  later  compilation  of  them  may  have  furnished  the  source  for 
the  Passus. 

In  Church  use,  therefore,  the  source  of  Division  VII  belongs 
to  the  Office  chanted  on  the  Vigil  of  Christmas  (December  24), 
more  definitely  to  the  Matins,  or  possibly  Lauds,  of  that  day. 

(2)  Although  the  direct  source  for  Division  X  has  hitherto 
been  unknown,  I  believe  this  to  be  found  in  the  Preface  sung  in 
the  midnight  Mass  of  Christmas.  The  first  part  or  address  of 
this  division  treats  specifically  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son  from  the  Father.  This  is  the  exclusive  theme  of  the  Preface 
in  question.  Moreover,  the  close  connection  of  Division  X  with 
the  Doxology  immediately  following  it  confirms  the  theory  which 
accepts  the  Christmas  Preface  as  its  source.  Although  the 
second  part  or  the  petition  of  this  division  does  not  seem  to  treat 
exclusively  a  theme  distinctly  connected  with  the  feast  of  Christ- 
mas, the  central  thought  underlying  it,  the  captivity  of  the  soul, 
is  found  in  the  Prayer  used  in  the  third  Mass  and  throughout  the 
Divine  Office  of  Christmas  day.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  petition  in  Cynewulf's  paraphrases  is  commonly  built  upon 
his  own  personal  reflections  and  often  does  not  give  a  clear 
indication  of  the  principal  source  employed  in  the  respective 
portion  of  the  poem.  The  place  which  Division  X  holds  in  the 
Church  use  is,  however,  plainly  that  of  Christmas  day  itself. 

(3)  The  Doxology,  or  Division  XI,  in  its  first  portion  (lines 
378-402,  is  based  upon  two  Antiphons  to  the  Holy  Trinity,  except 
perhaps  lines  385-402  which  can  be  looked  upon  as  an  expansion 
of  the  omnes  creaturae  tuae  of  the  second  Antiphon.  It  was  but 
natural  for  the  poet  to  turn  to  the  Office  of  the  Holy  Trinity  for 
the  sources  of  his  Doxology,  no  matter  how  far  removed  this 
Office  may  have  been  from  the  Christmas  Office  in  the  Antiphon- 
ary.  Yet,  in  the  days  of  Cynewulf  there  was  no  special  feast  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  as  we  have  it  today. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  feast  of  the  Trinity  was  not  extended 
to  the  whole  Church  until  the  pontificate  of  Pope  John  XXII 
(1316-1334),  although  it  had  been  observed  in  local  churches 
before  that  time.  Bishop  Stephen  of  Li^ge  (903-920)  composed 
an   Office  of   the   Holy   Trinity,  and  the   Micrologies  *^*   written 


Migne,  P.  L.,  151,  1020. 


78  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF    CHRIST   I. 

during  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  VII  (1073-1085)  refer  to  this 
Office  of  Bishop  Stephen,  though  they  themselves  have  no  feast 
in  honor  of  the  Trinity.^^  Still,  even  in  the  early  Church,  canti- 
cles, responses,  a  Preface  and  hymns  were  being  recited  on  the 
Sundays  of  the  year  in  honor  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  from  the 
time  when  the  Arian  heresy  began  to  spread.  Such  prayers  and 
a  Preface  are  found  in  the  Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  the 
Great,^^  and  must  have  spread  to  England  soon  after  Gregory's 
time,  if  not  with  St.  Augustine  himself.  It  is  not  said  that  the 
Office  composed  by  Bishop  Stephen  of  Liege  was  the  first  of  its 
kind  in  use. 

The  Antiphonary  of  Hartker  ^^  has  an  Office  after  the  Sundays 
and  ferias  post  Theophaniam,  and  it  is  there  called  Ystoria  de  sea. 
Trinitate.  The  two  Antiphons  used  by  Cynewulf  are  contained 
in  this  Office,  being  the  first  and  fifth  Antiphon  respectively  of 
Lauds.^^  The  Leof  ric  Collectar  ®^  likewise  has  the  two  Antiphons 
used  by  Cynewulf.  In  it  they  are  assigned  to  the  Sundays  after 
the  feast  of  the  Epiphany,  being  used  for  Prime  and  None  re- 
spectively. 

Cynewulf  therefore  found  the  sources  for  the  first  half  of  the 
Doxology  much  nearer  to  the  Christmas  Office  than  they  are  in 
the  Breviary  used  today.  He  did  not  need  to  turn  many  leaves 
to  find  them. 

The  second  half  of  the  Doxology  (lines  403-415)  was  seen 
to  be  a  faithful  transcription  of  the  Angelic  hymn  Sanctus, 
Sanctus,  Sanctus  which,  in  the  Mass,  follows  the  Preface  and  is 
introduced  by  it.  In  Church  use  this  part  of  the  Doxology  con- 
sequently belongs  to  the  same  Preface  upon  which  the  preceding 
division  (Division  X)  is  based. 

(4)  The  final  division,  Division  XII,  of  Christ  I  is  based  upon 
the  Antiphon  O  admirabile  commercium.  This  is  not  an  Advent 
"O,"  and  as  such  would  have  been  out  of  place  after  the  Doxology. 
It  is  the  outstanding  Antiphons  in  the  Office  of  the  Octave  of 
the  Nativity,  now  commonly  called  the  feast  of  the  Circumcision. 
In  this  place  we  find  it  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  in  the 


®'  Cf.  Catholic  Bncyclopcedia,  xv.  58. 

''  Migne,  P.  L.,  78,  116. 

"Pp.  101-105. 

•''P.  104. 

*»  Folia  32^-33". 


ON  the:  antiphonary.  79 

Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and  Toledo,  in  the  Leofric  Collectar,  and 
many  others.  In  later  times,  the  use  of  the  O  admirahile  com- 
mercium  was  extended  to  the  feast  of  the  Purification  on  Feb- 
ruary 2,  as  well  as  to  the  Saturday  Votive  Office  and  the  Officium 
Parvum  (or  "Horae,'  "Book  of  Hours,"  "English  Prymer")  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin. ^° 

Division  XII  of  Christ  I  accordingly  represents  in  Church  use 
the  Octave  of  Christmas  and,  as  being  a  paraphrase  of  the  prin- 
cipal Antiphon  of  that  Octave,  it  might  well  be  considered  a 
later  addition  to  the  poem.  This  does  not  mean  that  Cynewulf 
did  not  himself  compose  this  portion  of  Christ  I,  but  some  time 
must  have  intervened  between  its  composition  and  the  writing 
of  the  last  lines  of  the  Doxology.  Since  lines  416-439  do  not 
fit  well  into  the  scheme  of  Christ  I,  and  since  their  source  is  re- 
moved by  one  week  from  the  sources  of  the  other  O-paraphrases, 
a  theory  of  this  kind  does  not  seem  altogether  wanting  in  evi- 
dence. Yet,  with  the-  O  admirahile  commercium  as  its  basis,  this 
final  paraphrase,  even  if  a  later  addition,  fittingly  closes  the 
great  theme  carried  out  in  Part  I  of  Cynewulf's  Christ,  for  it  is 
with  the  Octave  of  Christmas  to  which  the  source  belongs,  that 
the  Christmas  Office  finds  its  close. 

The  foregoing  outline  of  the  sources  of  Christ  I  as  found  in 
actual  Church  use  was  necessarily  limited  to  those  practices  in 
the  mediaeval  Church  which  promised  to  give  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  order  of  succession  taken  by  these  sources  in  the 
Divine  Office  of  that  time.  A  comprehensive  survey  of  those 
sources  was  not  attempted  and  did  not  come  within  the  purview 
of  my  study. 

It  was  found  that  a  proper  estimate  of  the  sources  employed 
by  Cynewulf  requires  a  detachment  from  the  verbal  setting  of 
these  sources  in  the  Church  books,  and  a  corresponding  regard 
for  their  liturgical  setting  in  the  actual  chanting  of  the  Divine 
Office.  Mindful  of  the  wide  liberties  enjoyed  in  liturgical  mat- 
ters by  the  Church  of  the  early  Middle  Ages,  and  of  the  adapta- 
bility of  the  conventional  list  of  Advent  O's  to  the  practices  and 

'"Thus  in  the  "English  Prymer"  ("Horae  Beatae  Mariae  Virginis  se- 
cundum usum  Sarum,"  ca.  1410),  the  Antiphon  for  Lauds  and  Prime  is: 
"O  the  wondirful  marchaundise  (or:  exchaunge),  the  maker  of  mankynde 
takynge  a  bodi  with  a  soule  of  a  maide,  fouchide  saaf  to  be  born,  and  so 
goyn  forth  man  withoute  seed  gaf  to  us  his  godhede." — cf.  Maskell,  Monu- 
menta  Ritualia,  ii.  15,  23,  44. 


80  the:  dependence  of  CHRIST  I. 

"consuetudines"  of  the  individual  churches,  the  single  dislocation 
which  Cynewulf  allows  both  in  the  seven  Universal  O's  and  in 
the  Added  or  Monastic  O's  can  be  readily  accounted  for  by  the 
particular  Church  use  which  he  may  have  known  and  followed. 
Indeed,  the  slightly  changed  order  of  O-Antiphons  in  Christ  I 
might  even  be  considered  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  Antiphon- 
ary  containing  the  same  order  of  Greater  Antiphons. 

Tfhe  material  of  the  Passus  was  seen  to  belong  specifically  to 
the  Vigil  of  Christmas.  The  sources  of  the  divisions  following 
the  dialogue  progress  with  the  Divine  Office  from  the  Matins  of 
the  Vigil  to  the  Octave  of  Christmas.  The  0  Rex  Pacifice  falls 
to  the  Vesper  service  of  Christmas  Eve,  the  O  mundi  Domina  to 
the  celebration  of  the  solemn  Christmas  Matins,  the  Preface  of 
Division  X  to  the  midnight-Mass  immediately  following  the 
chanting  of  Matins.  The  Doxology  appears  as  the  conclusion 
of  the  preceding  Preface  as  well  as  of  the  great  poetic  hymn  of 
O's  in  praise  of  the  coming  of  Christ  to  mankind.  The  appended 
paraphrase  of  the  0  admirabile  commercium  represents  the 
Octave  of  Christmas  which  closes  the  narrower  celebration  of 
Christ's  Nativity. 

The  result  of  this  study  of  the  sources  of  Christ  I  should  throw 
some  light  upon  the  plan  or  outline  maintained  in  the  poem.  We 
can  therefore  proceed  to  bring  these  sources  as  found  in  actual 
Church  use  into  relation  with  the  twelve  divisions  of  Christ  I. 


IV 
CONCLUSION 


1.  The  Dependence  of  Christ  I  upon  the  Antiphonary 

In  the  preliminary  to  this  study  we  have  seen  that  the  manu- 
script divisions  of  Christ  I,  which  have  latterly  been  largely  dis- 
regarded, retain  their  significance  in  regard  to  the  construction 
of  the  poem.  In  the  new  valuation  given  them  above  they  support 
a  theory  of  structural  unity  which  I  have  called  the  hymnic  unity, 
since  the  whole  of  Christ  I,  with  the  exception  of  the  Passus  and 
of  the  last  section,  bears  a  striking  analogy  to  the  structure  of 
some  of  the  most  common  Church  hymns.  If  the  theory  of 
structural  unity  is  thus  given  secure  probability,  this  probability, 
in  the  later  discussion  of  the  sources  of  Christ  I,  is  raised  to 
what  seems  to  me  almost  a  certainty.  My  review  of  the  sources 
of  Christ  I  as  found  in  actual  Church  use,  moreover,  proves  that 
the  poet's  method  of  securing  structural  unity  was  one  of  close 
adherence  to  the  sourcebooks  from  which  he  drew  his  material, 
provided  this  material  is  not  taken  from  its  proper  setting  in  the 
Divine  Office  of  the  Church.  For,  if  the  material  upon  which 
the  twelve  divisions  are  based  is  collated  with  that  part  of  the 
Advent  and  Christmas  Office  from  which  it  is  taken,  the  order 
of  sequence  found  in  Christ  I  will  be  seen  to  conform  closely  to 
the  service  of  the  mediaeval  Church  as  Cynewulf  is  most  likely 
to  have  known  it. 

In  order  to  facilitate  a  summary  survey  of  the  whole  subject 
as  outlined  in  this  study,  the  following  table  is  appended : 

Based  on  Based  on  Based  on        The   Sources   in 

Universal  O.  Added  O.    Other  Sources.       Church   Use. 

-  O  Sapientia  (I)  The  week  before 

A.  -  O  Adonai    (II)  Christmas. 
-O  Radix     (III) 
I  O  Rex  gentium  (VI) 

B.  II  OClavis(IV) 

III  O  Hierusalem  (4) 

IV  O  Virgo  virg.  (1) 

C.  V  O  Oriens  (V) 
VI  O  Emmanuel  (VII)  December  23. 

81 


82  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

D.'    VII  (The  Passus)  Matth.i.18-21  Vigil,  Matins. 

VIII  O  Rex  Pacifice  (2)  Dec.  24,  Vespers. 

D.^     IX  O  mundi  Domina  (3)  Christmas  Matins. 

X  (Unknown,  Poet's  own)  Preface  Midnight  Mass. 

E.'      XI  (Doxology)  Trinity  Ant.  Sunday  Office. 

Sanctus.  Mass. 

E.^    XII  O  adm.  Commercium  Octave   of 

Christmas. 

The  Roman  numerals  from  I  to  XII  in  the  second  column 
represent  the  source-divisions  in  Christ  I,  based  either  upon  an 
Advent  "O"  (Universal  or  Added),  or  upon  some  other  source 
indicated.  The  last  column  gives  the  succession  of  the  sources 
in  the  Divine  Office  and  service  of  the  Church. 

The  one-line  spaces  in  the  manuscript  mark  off  the  smaller 
divisions  into  the  groups  B,  C,  D,  and  E.  I  have  placed  the 
Passus,  as  well  as  the  last  section  into  a  separate  subdivided 
group,  because  their  status  in  the  poem  is  not  quite  clear  and 
they  actually  mar  the  symmetrical  proportions  otherwise  main- 
tained in  Christ  I. 

Group  A  represents  what  I  conceive  to  have  been  the  content 
of  the  lost  portion  of  the  Christ  at  the  beginning  of  the  manu- 
script. It  was  shown  that  the  three  Greater  Antiphons  placed 
there  must  be  accounted  for,  since  no  other  portion  of  the  poem 
treats  them  commensurately  with  their  importance  and  position 
in  the  Antiphonary. 

Groups  B  and  C  represent  in  the  liturgy  the  week  before 
Christmas,  in  which  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent  were  being 
chanted.  With  the  supposition  of  group  A,  all  seven  Universal 
O's  are  thus  accounted  for  in  Christ  I,  in  an  order,  it  is  true, 
slightly  different  from  that  found  in  most  of  the  Antiphonaries 
that  have  come  down  to  us,  but  not  unlike  that  of  the  Antiphon- 
aries of  Lucca  and  Toledo  of  the  twelfth  century.  With  regard 
to  the  insertion  of  two  Added  O's  in  Groups  B  and  C,  it  was 
pointed  out  that  the  customs  surrounding  the  chanting  of  the 
Added  or  Monastic  O's  in  the  mediaeval  Church  would  sanction 
this  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  poet.  Being  used  for  the 
"memorials"  or  the  service  ad  crucem,  these  additional  O's  had 
no  fixed  place  in  actual  Church  use,  though  they  commonly 
followed  a  conventional  order  in  the  list  of  Advent  O's.    Besides, 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  83 

Cynewulf  allowed  only  a  slight  change  of  even  the  conventional 
order,  by  merely  taking  the  O  Hierusalem  first  instead  of  last. 

The  Roman  numerals  after  the  seven  Universal  O's  show 
their  enumeration  in  the  Antiphonary  of  Hartker.  In  like  man- 
ner the  Arabic  numerals  after  the  Added  O's.  It  is  apparent  that 
only  No.  VI  of  the  former,  and  No.  4  of  the  latter  are  disar- 
ranged in  Christ  I. 

Group  D\  or  the  Passus,  marks  a  larger  division  in  the  content 
of  the  poem.  The  several  Universal  O's  have  now  all  been  para- 
phrased. The  Vigil  of  Christmas  is  at  hand,  and  the  Gospel 
extract  read  on  that  Vigil  forms  the  ultimate  source  for  the 
dialogue  contained  in  this  division.  Henceforth  the  poetic  para- 
phrases become  more  elaborate  (Divisions  VIII  and  IX  being  the 
longest  in  Christ  I,  with  61  and  73  lines  respectively),  the  inter- 
polations of  extraneous  or  at  least  not  closely  connected  material 
become  more  extensive  (in  Division  VIII  the  account  of  the 
creation  of  light  in  lines  224-235 ;  in  Division  IX  the  vision  of 
Ezekiel  in  lines  301-334),  and  the  longing  for  the  Redeemer  is 
more  intense.  All  this  is  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  Church 
displayed  in  her  Office  of  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity.  If  the 
Passus  should  be  by  a  later  hand,  the  proper  place  which,  accord- 
ing to  its  theme,  it  should  occupy  in  the  poem  was  rightly  felt, 
and  in  this  respect  it  does  not  mar  the  sequence  of  subjects  in 
Christ  I. 

Group  D^  represents  the  Christmas  Office:  Division  VIII  be- 
ing taken  from  the  first  Vespers  of  the  Nativity  on  December 
24  or  from  a  special  service  connected  with  these  Vespers,  Di- 
vision IX,  from  the  O  mundi  Domina  service  following  the 
solemn  chanting  of  Matins  on  the  Eve  of  Christmas  and  itself 
immediately  followed  by  the  midnight-Mass,  and  Division  X,  from 
the  Preface  of  that  midnight-Mass  of  Christmas,  thus  leading  to 
the  theme  of  the  Doxology  which  follows  in  the  poem. 

Group  E^  constitutes  the  Doxology  and  probably  was  at  first 
designed  to  mark  the  completion  of  the  O-paraphrases.  The 
material  for  this  Doxology  is  not  taken  from  the  Advent  An- 
tiphonary. Yet  it  was  seen  that  the  sources  of  it  lay  much  nearer 
to  the  Christmas  Office  in  the  days  of  Cynewulf  than  in  our  own 
day.  The  sources  for  the  first  half,  the  two  Trinity  Antiphons, 
are  found  in  the  common  Sunday  Office,  while  the  source  for  the 


84  THE   DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST   I. 

second  half,  the  Angelic  hymn  Sanctus,  is  even  more  immediate 
in  its  sequence  upon  the  Preface  of  the  Mass  which  forms  the 
basis  for  the  preceding  division. 

Group  E^  finally  represents  the  Octave  of  Christmas  which  is 
the  completion  of  the  Christmas  festival  proper,  though  the  entire 
Christmas  season  extends  to  the  feast  of  the  Purification  on 
February  2.  From  the  nature  of  the  source  upon  which  it  is 
based,  this  closing  section  of  Christ  I  might  be  considered  a  later 
appendage  to  the  poem,  so  that  Cynewulf  may  be  credited  with 
its  composition  at  the  time  when  the  Octave  of  Christmas  was 
actually  being  celebrated. 

With  a  disposition  of  the  material  in  Christ  I  as  seen  here,  the 
absolute  arbitrariness  of  the  poet  in  arranging  his  subjects  seems 
reduced  to  a  mere  fantasy.  There  is  method,  there  is  coherence, 
there  is  unity,  a  unity  not  merely  of  mood  but  of  structure.  If 
the  progression  of  subjects  presented  in  the  twelve  divisions  of 
Christ  I  is  not  dependent  upon  logic  nor  upon  an  orderly  develop- 
ment of  thought,  the  fault  lies  with  the  source-books  employed, 
and  not  with  the  poet.  Indeed,  the  character  of  the  sources  de- 
termines the  unity  of  the  poem,  but  it  is  not  merely  a  lyrical 
unity  which  the  sources  determine.  It  is  a  Unity  of  plan  or  ex- 
ternal construction  evident  in  the  close  adherence  of  the  poet  to 
the  order  in  which  his  sources  appear  in  the  Church  use. 

From  the  manner  in  which  Cynewulf  follows  the  Church  use 
in  arranging  the  material  of  Christ  I  it  appears  that  his  inspiration 
for  the  successive  paraphrases  was  not  derived  so  much  from 
the  service  books  themselves  as  from  an  actual  attendance  at  the 
Divine  Office.  In  other  words,  the  sources  of  Christ  I  must  not 
be  taken  out  of  their  proper  environment,  that  is,  from  their 
liturgical  setting  in  the  actual  chanting  of  the  Divine  Office;  for 
only  in  that  essential  atmosphere  do  they  receive  that  life  and 
that  spirit  which  warmed  the  emotions  and  stimulated  the  power 
of  song  in  Cynewulf.  Only  in  that  life  which  they  live  in  the 
liturgy  of  the  Church  can  their  true  influence  upon  the  structural 
plan  of  Christ  I  be  measured. 

While  thus  the  Antiphonary  as  a  book  would  be  excluded  as 
the  immediate  source  of  inspiration  for  the  poet,  it  nevertheless 
constitutes  for  the  practical  purposes  of  study  and  investigation 
the  chief  sourcebook  for  Part  I  of  the  Christ.     With  the  excep- 


ON  THE  ANTIPHONARY. 


85 


tion  of  D)i visions  VII  and  X,  the  smaller  divisions  of  Christ  I 
are  all  based  on  material  contained  in  the  Antiphonary.  Conse- 
quently the  result  of  my  investigation  affects  in  a  special  manner 
this  chief  source-book  of  Cynewulf.  And  it  affects  in  particular 
the  question,  in  what  relation  does  Christ  I  structurally  stand  to 
the  Antiphonary? 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  structural 
relation  of  Christ  I  to  the  Antiphonary  is  one  of  almost  complete 
dependence.  With  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  liturgical  prac- 
tices followed  by  the  mediaeval  Church,  the  slight  disarrangement 
in  the  seven  Universal  O's  as  well  as  in  the  Added  O's  apparent 
in  Christ  I  does  not  destroy  the  conclusion  thus  arrived  at.  Nor 
does  the  insertion  of  two  Added  O's  between  the  seven  Universal 
O's,  as  Divisions  III  and  IV  disclose,  militate  against  the  theory 
of  the  poet's  dependence  upon  the  Antiphonary  for  the  order  in 
which  he  places  his  themes.  In  these  smaller  adjustments  of  his 
material,  the  poet  must  be  conceived  as  merely  following  an 
individually  adapted  Antiphonary  of  his  own  church. 

In  fact,  a  reconstructed  Antiphonary  on  the  plan  of  Christ  I 
could  not  be  considered  as  presenting  an  unaccustomed  anomaly. 
If  Cynewulf  had  known  and  used  a  book  of  this  kind,  the  list 
of  Greater  Antiphons  appearing  in  it  would  compare  with  that 
of  Hartker's  Antiphonary  and  the  Antiphonaries  of  Lucca  and 
Toledo  in  the  following  manner : 

//ar/i^^r  (St.  Gall  MS)   Cynewulf. 


O  Sapientia 

O  Adonai 

O  Radix  Jesse 

O  Clavis  David 
O  Oriens 
O  Rex  gentium 
O  Emmanuel 

O  Virgo  virginum 
O  Gabriel 
O  Rex  Pacifice 
O  mundi  Domina 
O  Hierusalem 


O  Sapientia 
O  Adonai 
O  Radix  Jesse 
O  Rex  gentium 
O  Clavis  David 
O  Oriens 

O  Emmanuel 
O  Hierusalem 
O  Virgo  virginum 
(O  Gabriel?) 
O  Rex  Pacifice 
O  mundi  Domina 


Lucca  &  Toledo. 
O  Sapientia 
O  Adonai 
O  Radix  Jesse 

O  Clavis  David 

O  Rex  gentium 
O  Emmanuel 
O  Oriens 


86  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

Indeed,  a  Cynewulf-Antiphonary  seems  plausible  enough.  The 
very  order  which  Cynewulf  maintains  in  his  sources  in  Christ  I 
might  argue  in  favor  of  such  an  Antiphonary,  though  its  ex- 
istence is  unknown  to  us.  Tf,  however,  the  poet  followed  the 
Antiphonary  in  use  at  St.  Gall  and  preserved  for  us  in  the  rich 
library  of  that  monastery,  local  adaptations  prevailing  in  the 
monasteries  of  England  will  have  to  account  for  the  slight  dif- 
ferences which  exist  in  the  arrangement  of  material  in  Christ  I 
as  compared  with  the  St.  Gall  manuscript. 

The  plan  or  outline,  therefore,  which  Cynewulf  followed  in 
the  construction  of  Christ  I  is  derived  from  the  Antiphonary 
correctly  interpreted  for  all  the  paraphrases  of  the  poem  based 
on  antiphonal  matter.  The  dependence  of  the  poet  upon  this 
source-book  is  consequently  not  confined  to  the  material  taken 
therefrom,  but  extends  to  the  very  arrangement  or  sequence  of 
the  smaller  divisions  based  on  that  material.  It  is  a  dependence 
which  furnishes  the  unifying  element  in  the  poem.  Yes,  Cyne- 
wulf is  mindful  and  careful  of  the  ''architectonics  and  the  per- 
spective" of  the  whole;  he  does  show  his  "ability  to  view  the 
smaller  scenes  as  related  parts  of  a  larger  whole,"  and  this  ability 
is  the  fruit  of  his  dependence  upon  the  Antiphonary. 

2.    COROLIvARY   "A" 

Further  Dependence  upon  the  Antiphonary 

For  the  purpose  of  this  investigation,  viz.,  to  determine  Cyne- 
wulf's  dependence  upon  the  Antiphonary  in  the  construction  of 
Christ  I,  that  antiphonal  matter  alone  was  considered  which 
forms  the  basis  for  the  individual  paraphrases  as  such.  Yet, 
from  the  very  dependence  of  the  poet  upon  the  Antiphonary  for 
the  succession  of  his  themes,  as  pointed  out  in  my  study,  the 
inference  of  a  further  dependence  upon  that  very  source-book 
easily  suggests  itself.  It  is  true,  Cynewulf  introduces  into  the 
smaller  divisions  of  Christ  I  a  large  amount  of  material  derived 
from  other  service  books  used  in  the  Divine  Office.  Still,  I 
believe,  the  full  influence  of  the  Antiphonary  itself  even  upon 
the  subsidiary  material  of  the  paraphrases,  as  standing  apart 
from  the  material  furnished  by  the  Greater  Antiphons,  has  not 
been  adequately  determined. 

Though  the  subject  is  well  worth  the  effort  of  more  extended 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  87 

research,  a  few  suggestions  relating  to  this  further  influence  of 
the  Antiphonary  in  Christ  I  may  not  be  out  of  place. 

To  line  2""  ff. — Cook  (p.  73)  refers  for  the  thoughts  here  de- 
veloped to  Psalm  118.  22  (in  the  Vulgate  text,  Psalm  117.  22). 
This  is  undoubtedly  the  ultimate  source  of  the  passage,  and  even 
as  such  was  surely  known  to  Cynewulf  through  the  chanting  of 
the  Psalms  in  the  Office,  Still  the  Antiphonary  brings  this  verse 
of  Psalm  118  in  direct  connection  with  the  coming  Savior  in  the 
Christmas  Office.  Wherefore  Cynewulf  would  seem  to  have 
relied  more  immediately  for  this  text  upon  the  Antiphonary.  A 
Response  in  the  Office  for  Christmas  day  is :  ^ 

Benedictus  qui  venit  in  nomine  Domini,  Deus  Dominus 
et  illuxit  nobis.  V.  Lapidem  quem  reprobaverunt  aedifi- 
cantes,  hie  factus  est  in  caput  anguli.  A  Domino  factum 
est  istud,  et  est  mirabile  in  oculis  nostris. 

To  line  lop:  God  of  Code. — Cook  says  in  his  Notes  (p.  91)  : 
"This  can  only  come  from  the  Nicene  Creed."  An  Antiphon 
for  Christmas  day  is  as  follows :  ^ 

Natus  est  nobis  deus  de  deo,  lumen  de  lumine,  quod  erat 
in  principio. 
To  lines  130  ff. — The  division  based  on  the  Great  Antiphon  of 
Advent,  O  Emmanuel,  begins  as  follows : 

Eala  gaesta  God,  hu  pn  gleawlice 

mid  noman  ryhte  nemned  waere 

Emmanuhel,  swa  hit  engel  gecwae^ 

merest  on  Ebresc;  (lines  130-133") 

Cynewulf  here  confuses  the  angel  with  the  prophet  Isaias,  for 
it  was  not  the  former  but  the  latter  who  first  announced  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue  the  name  to  be  given  to  the  coming  Redeemer 
as  that  of  ''Emmanuel"  (Is.  vii.  14).  The  only  name  given  by 
the  angel  to  the  Son  of  God  was  that  of  "Jesus"  (Matth.  i.  21). 

The  error  thus  made  seems  to  have  been  carried  over  by  the 
poet  from  the  Antiphonary,  for  we  find  the  following  versicle  in 
the  Office  of  the  Vigil  of  the  Nativity  in  Hartker's  Antiphonary :  ^ 

Nascitur  mundo  oriens  gabrihel  quem  angelus  vocavit 
emmanuhel  nobiscum  deus. 


*  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  p.  49. 
^Ihid.,  p.  53. 
•P.  8. 


88  The;  dependence  of  christ  i. 

This  instance,  though  an  isolated  one,  tends  to  show  that 
Cynewulf  reHed  not  so  much  upon  a  direct  knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  upon  the  information  he  had  acquired 
through  his  attendance  at  the  Divine  Office.  For  the  versicle 
in  question  was  probably  chanted  as  written,  and  the  error  may 
have  been  copied  time  and  again  unnoticed.  The  MS.  of  St.  Gall 
shows  no  trace  of  a  later  erasure  and  correction,  and  the  neums 
placed  over  the  word  "angelus"  are  plainly  composed  for  that 
word.  It  is  most  likely  that  Cynewulf  himself  never  saw  this 
versicle  in  the  written  codex,  but  heard  it  repeatedly  from  the 
lips  of  the  chanters.  At  any  rate,  this  strange  coincidence  seems 
to  strengthen  the  theory  of  a  greater  influence  of  the  Antiphonary 
in  the  composition  of  Christ  I  than  is  being  granted  by  students 
of  the  Christ. 

To  line  138. — The  introduction  of  Melchisedech  as  a  prototype 
of  Christ  is  current  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Church.  Yet,  the  Advent 
Office  contains  the  same  reference  to  Melchisedech  in  a  Re- 
sponse sung  in  the  week  preceding  Christmas :  * 

Praecursor  pro  nobis  ingreditur  agnus  sine  macula  secun- 
dum ordinem  Melchisedech  Pontifex  factus  in  aeternum  et 
in  saeculum  saeculi. 
To  lines  145  ff. — The  motive  drawn  from  the  Harrowing  of 
Hell  may  have  been  partly  suggested  by  the  Response  in  the 
Office  of  the  Vigil  of  Christmas :  ^ 

Constantes  estote,  videbitis  auxilium  Domini  super  vos ; 
ludaea  et  Hierusalem,  nolite  timere,  eras  egrediemini  et 
Dominus  erit  vobiscum.  V.  Vos  qui  in  pulvere  estis,  exper- 
giscimini,  et  laudate  ecce  Dominus  veniet  cum  salute.^ 

To  lines  jo6  ff. — In  reference  to  the  "golden  gate"  the  Re- 
sponse in  the  Office  of  the  week  proceding  Christmas  may  be 
noted :  ^ 


*  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  p.  35. 

"Ibid.,  p.  42. 

'  For  the  motive  drawn  from  the  Harrowing  of  Hell  see  also  Serm/)  III 
attributed  to  St.  Augustine  (Migne,  P.  L.,  47,  1153  ff.),  in  which  the 
"captive  souls"  in  Limbo  address  Christ.  Possibly  an  influence  can  also 
be  sought  in  the  remarkable  hymn  by  Bede,  "De  Passione  sancti  Joannis 
Baptistae,"  (Migne,  P.  L.,  94,  630  f.),  in  which  St.  John  the  Baptist,  after 
his  own  death,  is  described  as  announcing  the  advent  of  the  Redeemer  to 
the  just  souls  in  Limbo,  even  as  he  had  announced  His  coming  to  the 
living  while  on  earth.  In  this  hymn,  moreover,  the  departed  among  whom 
John  has  come,  address  him  and  Christ.  To  the  Redeemer  they  exclaim: 
"Descende,  Jesu,  et  eripe." 

^The  Antiphonary  of  Hartker,  p.  36. 


ON   THE  ANTIPHONARY.  89 

Adnuntiatum  est  per  gabrihelem  archangelum  mariae 
virgin!  de  introitu  regis  et  ingressus  est  per  splendidam 
regionem  aurem  virginis  visitare  palatium  uteri  et  egressus 
est  per  auream  portam  virginis. 

From  the  few  instances  shown  here  it  is  apparent  that  Cyne- 
wulf  was  influenced  by  the  Antiphonary  not  only  in  his  selection 
of  the  O-Antiphons  as  the  themes  upon  which  his  paraphrases 
are  built,  but  also  for  some  of  his  subsidiary  or  "interpolated" 
matter.  Nevertheless,  the  principal  dependence  of  the  poet  upon 
the  Antiphonary  will  remain  restricted  to  the  general  sources 
for  the  smaller  sections  of  Christ  I  and  to  the  order  of  succession 
in  which  these  follow  in  the  poem.  But  the  Antiphonary  thus 
relied  upon  by  Cynewulf  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  its 
actual  use  in  the  Divine  Office,  for  the  sequence  of  themes  in 
Christ  I  shows  that  the  poet  took  not  the  ''written"  but  the 
"chanted"  sources  as  a  basis  for  his  poem.  The  one  great  source 
of  Christ  I,  I  believe,  is  the  Divine  Office  as  celebrated  in  the 
Advent  season.  Though  it  would  not  be  an  easy  matter  to  show 
in  what  degree  even  the  "interpolated"  matter  of  the  poem  is 
taken  from  the  Divine  Office  for  the  lack  of  existing  Lectionaries 
and  Homiliaries  dating  from  the  time  of  Cynewulf,  still  the  knowl- 
edge we  now  have  of  Christ  I  creates  a  strong  presumption  in 
favor  of  such  a  theory. 

3.  Corollary  "B" 

The  Working  Methods  of  Cynewulf  and  the  Unity  of  the  Christ 

It  would  naturally  be  expected  that  the  methods  which  Cyne- 
wulf is  seen  to  follow  in  the  composition  of  Part  I  of  the  Christ 
should  throw  some  light  upon  Parts  II  and  III  in  their  relation 
to  the  first  part.  In  other  words,  should  not  the  theory  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  poet  uses  his  sources  in  Christ  I  lead  to 
some  conclusion  regarding  the  authorship  of  this  poem  as  com- 
pared with  the  authorship  of  Parts  II  and  III?  Surely,  it  will 
be  said,  the  definite  working  method  of  the  poet  apparent  in 
Part  I  should  be  reflected  in  the  other  two  parts,  if  these  are  by 
the  same  author.  If  the  method  in  Part  I  is  dififerent  from  that 
of  Parts  II  and  III,  should  this  not  speak  against  the  common 
authorship  of  the  three  parts  and  against  the  unity  of  the  Christ? 

Yet,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  peculiar  method  of  following  the 
sources  in  Christ  I  can  be  made  to  argue  either  for  or  against 


90  THE  DE:pENDE:nCE   of    CHRIST   I. 

the  common  authorship  of  the  three  parts,  for  the  difiference  of 
sources  as  well  as  of  the  general  theme  in  the  three  parts  of  the 
Christ  will  always  stand  in  the  way  of  a  definite  conclusion  in 
this  matter. 

In  defining  the  sources  for  Parts  II  and  III  of  the  Christ, 
Cook  ^  gives  as  the  primary  source  of  Part  II  the  Ascension 
sermon  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  and  as  the  secondary  source 
the  Ascension  hymn  attributed  to  Bede.  For  Part  III  he  estab- 
lishes the  chief  source  in  the  Alphabetical  Hymn  quoted  by  Bede 
in  his  De  Arte  Metrica.  The  other  influences  in  this  part  he 
determines  as  follows: 

*  *  *  for  the  suggestion  of  the  Sign  of  the  Son  of  Man 
to  the  vision  of  Constantine,  a  passage  in  Ephraem  Syrus, 
or  one  doubtfully  attributed  to  Augustine ;  for  the  mourning 
of  the  universe  at  Christ's  death,  to  Gregory ;  for  the  bloody 
sap  of  the  trees,  to  the  Apocrypha ;  for  Christ's  address  to 
the  sinner,  to  Caesarius  of  Aries,  or,  more  ultimately, 
Ephraem  Syrus ;  for  the  sword  of  victory  in  the  hand  of  the 
Judge,  to  Prudentius ;  and  for  the  account  of  the  joys  of 
the  blessed,  to  Gregory  and  Augustine. 
In  this  comparative  unity  of  sources  in  the  Christ,  Cook  ^  finds 
an  argument  for  the  unity  of  the  poem.    He  says : 

The  sources  of  I  are  from  the  Breviary;  so,  too,  is  Greg- 
ory's homily,  the  most  important  source  of  II,  and  perhaps 
also  the  Ascension  hymn,  or  at  least  part  of  it,  since,  as  it 
is  found  in  the  Surtees  Hymns,  it  may  have  existed  in  the 
Breviary  of  the  period. 

The  secondary  source  of  II  is  a  hymn  ascribed  to  Bede ;  the 
chief  source  of  III  is  a  hymn  first  quoted  by  Bede. 

Not  only  is  Gregory  the  author  of  the  principal  source  of 
II,  but  he  furnishes  important  subsidiary  sources  for  III. 

The  sources  of  the  Christ,  it  is  true,  appear  to  be  derived  almost 
uniformly  from  the  "Breviary,"  the  only  exception  being  the 
Alphabetical  Hymn  quoted  by  Bede,  for  we  have  no  assurance 
that  this  hymn  or  any  part  of  it  was  ever  used  in  the  Divine 
Office,  (and  possibly  also  the  Ascension  hymn  in  Part  II).  But 
the  term  "Breviary,"  as  denoting  the  depository  of  these  sources 
is,  I  believe,  somewhat  misapplied.  In  the  days  of  Cynewulf 
the  various  portions  constituting  the  Divine  Office  of  the  Church 
had  not  as  yet  been  collected  into  one  single  book. 

'  Pp.  xliii-xlv. 
» P.  xxii. 


ON   TH^  ANTIPHONARY.  91 

Among  the  books  bequeathed  by  Bishop  Leofric  to  the  cathe- 
dral of  Exeter  (and  the  *'mycel  EngHsc  boc"  containing  the 
Christ  was  among  them)  we  find  mention  of  the  mass-book, 
collectaneum,  epistle-book,  antiphonary,  **ad  te  levavi,"  troper, 
psalter,  hymnar,  blessing-book,  martyrology,  lectionary,  and 
Gospel-book.^^  All  of  those  books  here  mentioned  which  were 
used  in  the  celebration  of  the  Divine  Office  would  now  be  col- 
lected into  the  one  service-book  called  the  ^'Breviary."  If  thus  in 
the  days  of  Cynewulf  the  various  parts  to  be  chanted  or  recited 
in  the  Office  were  scattered  in  various  codices,  the  sources  of  the 
Christ  would  be  more  appropriately  designated  as  derived  from 
the  ''celebration  of  the  Divine  Office." 

With  this  distinction  of  the  various  service-books  in  mind, 
it  will  be  observed  that  the  sources  of  the  Christ,  while  in  general 
derived  from  the  common  liturgical  celebration  of  the  Divine 
Office,  are  yet  different  in  their  immediate  source-books  embody- 
ing the  various  parts  of  that  Office.  Thus  the  sources  of  Part  I 
of  the  Christ  are  taken  principally  from  the  Antiphonary,  while 
those  of  Parts  II  and  III  are  derived  from  the  lectionaries, 
homiliaries,  and  hymnars.  In  Part  I  the  poet  bases  his  para- 
phrases upon  sources  that  were  ''chanted"  in  the  Office ;  in  Parts 
II  and  III  he  follows  to  a  great  extent  sermons  that  were  merely 
"recited"  or  read  in  an  elevated  tone.  In  Part  I,  moreover,  the 
sources  appear  as  individually  separate  smaller  pieces,  while  those 
of  the  other  two  parts  represent  a  continued  theme. 

In  attempting  a  comparison  of  the  working  methods  pursued 

by  the  poet  in  the  three  parts  of  the  Christ,  the  differences  in  the 

sources  must  necessarily  be  taken  into  consideration.    The  sources 

derived   from  the  Antiphonary  may  have  influenced  Cynewulf 

in  a  greater  degree  than  the  sources  derived  from  lectionaries. 

He  may  himself  have  been  one  of  the  chanters,  and  as   such 

derived  a  fuller  inspiration  from  the  majestic  and  sweet  music 

of  the  O's  than  from  the  sermon  of  a  Father.     On  the  other 

hand,  if  he  was  not  a  chanter,  his  devout  attention  during  the 

singing  of  the  Antiphons  filled  his  mind  with  pious  and  fervent 

reflections  which  themselves  clamored  for  utterance  in  a  song 

of  praise.    At  any  rate,  we  can  well  imagine  that  the  influence  of 

chanted  Antiphons  was  different  from  that  conveyed  by  recited 

'"Cf.  Kemble,  Cod.  Dipl.  Anglo-Sax.,  iv.  275;  Daniel  Rock,  Church  of 
our  Fathers,  ed.  Hart  and  Frere,  1904,  iv.  18. 


92  THE  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST   I. 

homilies  and  sermons.  As  to  the  arrangement  of  the  O-para- 
phrases  in  the  poem,  he  would  take  them  in  the  order  in  which 
the  Antiphons  upon  which  they  are  based  were  chanted  in  the 
Office,  for  the  Greater  Antiphons  of  Advent  were  taken  on  cer- 
tain days  and  were  distributed  over  the  last  week  of  Advent. 

The  working  methods  of  the  poet  in  Parts  II  and  III  of  the 
Christ  had  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  sources 
employed  there.  The  source-books  for  these  parts,  the  lection- 
aries,  homiliaries,  and  hymnars  were  certainly  more  easily  acces- 
sible than  the  antiphonary  and  thus  lent  themselves  more  readily 
to  private  study  and  to  the  labor  of  collecting  as  well  as  selecting 
suitable  material.  For  the  books  containing  the  sermons  and 
writings  of  the  Fathers  were  not  confined  to  their  use  in  the 
Office ;  they  were  read  and  studied  by  the  monk  in  his  cell.  They 
were  to  be  had  from  the  library  of  the  monastery,  while  the 
single  copy  of  the  Antiphonary  remained  in  the  church.  More- 
over, a  sermon  or  hymn  is  one  complete  composition  presenting 
a  continued  theme,  while  the  O-Antiphons  are  detached  pieces 
individually  celebrating  one  of  the  Scriptural  titles  given  to  the 
coming  Redeemer.  These  Antiphons  are  spread  over  a  whole 
week  in  the  Divine  Office,  while  the  sermons  and  homilies  of  the 
Fathers  as  well  as  the  hymns  were  read  or  sung,  in  their  largest 
portion  at  least,  at  one  time.  In  the  readings  of  the  Office  there 
was  no  specified  number  of  lines  or  pages ;  the  reader  continued 
until  the  sign  for  terminating  the  selection  was  given  by  the 
Superior.  In  the  sources  for  Parts  II  and  III  of  the  Christ, 
therefore,  the  order  in  which  they  appear  in  the  Office  does  not 
affect  the  working  methods  of  the  poet  in  the  same  degree  as 
the  order  of  succession  in  the  O-Antiphons.  When  paraphrasing 
the  Greater  Antiphons,  the  poet  had  to  deal  with  sources  that 
came  in  a  certain  sequence;  when  paraphrasing  or  utilizing  a 
sermon  or  hymn,  he  had  this  before  him  in  its  entirety  without 
successive  parts. 

If  the  smaller  divisions  of  Part  I  in  themselves  are  considered, 
the  poet's  method  does  not  materially  differ  in  the  three  parts 
of  the  Christ.  Wherefore,  the  chief  contrast  between  the  work- 
ing methods  pursued  in  Part  I  and  those  followed  in  Parts  II 
and  III  lies  in  the  arrangement  of  material,  and  this  contrast 
was  seen  to  flow  from  the  nature  of  the  sources  employed. 
Consequently  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the  Christ  does  not 


ON   THE   ANTIPHONARY.  93 

appear  to  be  materially  affected  by  the  result  of  my  study  as  to 
the  construction  of  Christ  I.  The  real  difficulty  in  accepting  a 
common  authorship  of  the  three  parts  of  the  Christ  seems  to 
lie  in 'the  difference  of  the  sources  themselves.  If  the  author  of 
Part  I  selects  a  series  of  Antiphons  as  the  basis  of  his  poem, 
why  does  the  author  of  Part  II  not  also  base  his  poem  upon  the 
Antiphons  of  the  Ascension  Office?  Again,  if  the  poet  takes  the 
Gospel  narrative  with  homilies  and  sermons  written  upon  it  as 
the  basis  for  Parts  II  and  III,  why  does  he  not  follow  the 
Gospel  narrative  with  corresponding  homiletical  expansions  in 
his  treatment  of  the  Advent  of  Christ  in  the  Incarnation?  This 
difficulty,  of  course,  is  mitigated  by  the  fact  that  the  Divine 
Office  which  celebrates  the  Ascension  and  the  Doomsday  does 
not  contain  such  an  admirable  set  of  Antiphons  embodying  the 
pith  and  marrow  of  the  theme  as  does  the  Advent  Office. 

While  the  unity  of  the  Christ  has  as  yet  not  been  established 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all  inquirers,  the  presumptions  in  favor  of 
it  do  not  seem  to  be  lessened  by  the  working  methods  of  the 
poet  apparent  in  his  construction  of  Part  I  of  the  poem. 

4.  Corollary  "C" 

The  Sources  of  the  Christ  and  the  Poet 

In  the  study  presented  above  it  was  seen  that  the  poet's  de- 
pendence upon  the  Antiphonary  extends  to  the  arrangement  of 
the  smaller  divisions  of  Christ  I  in  the  successive  order  which  the 
sources  hold  in  the  actual  use  of  the  Antiphonary  at  the  Divine 
Office.  Cynewulf  is  thus  conceived  as  deriving  his  inspiration 
and  material  for  Part  I  of  the  Christ  not  so  much  from  a  copy 
of  the  Antiphonary  before  him,  as  from  a  "living"  Antiphonary 
in  actual  use  in  the  Church  service.  The  construction  of  Christ  I 
therefore  points  to  the  poet's  personal  attendance  at  the  Divine 
Office.  This  then  becomes  the  well  of  inspiration  for  him  in  the 
composition  of  his  poem.  The  sources  of  Parts  II  and  III  of 
the  Christ  likewise  show  the  poet's  dependence  upon  the  Divine 
Office  for  the  inspiration  and  material  which  gave  rise  to  his 
poetical  version  of  the  Ascension  and  the  Doomsday.  Although 
we  are  left  largely  to  our  own  surmises  in  regard  to  the  actual 
content  of  the  various  lectionaries,  homiliaries,  hymnars,  and 
other   Office-books   at  the  time  of   Cynewulf,  there  can  be  no 


94  THE  DEPENDKNCi;  OF   CHRIST   I. 

doubt  of  the  dependence  of  the  poet,  even  in  Parts  II  and  III  of 
the  Christ,  upon  the  sources  available  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Divine  Office. 

In  making  an  investigation  of  the  sources  of  the  Christ,  it 
would  therefore  seem  but  natural  to  seek  those  sources  in  the 
first  instance  in  the  Divine  Office,  which  furnishes  the  principal 
material  of  the  poem.  And  when  a  particular  source  has  been 
discovered,  say  a  homily  of  one  of  the  Fathers,  it  should,  accord- 
ing to  our  present  knowledge  of  the  Christ,  be  brought  into  re- 
lation with  the  Divine  Office  of  Cynewulf's  time  whenever  pos- 
sible. For  a  study  of  the  Christ  tends  to  show  that  the  one  great 
source  upon  which  the  poet  relied  was  the  Divine  Office  of  the 
Church,  and  our  investigations  are  likely  to  yield  more  immediate 
and  direct  results  if  this  fact  is  borne  in  mind. 

Yet  the  practice  followed  by  some  students  of  the  Christ  ap- 
pears to  be  a  different  one.  They  seem  to  proceed  in  their  task 
of  investigation  from  the  supposition  that  Cynewulf  knew  and 
used  all  the  Christian  writings  extant  in  his  day,  but  that  his 
knowledge  of  the  Divine  Office  with  all  it  contained  was  negligible. 
Consequently,  in  their  quest  for  sources  and  influences,  they 
roam  far  and  wide  over  all  the  domains  of  literature,  with  little 
or  no  attention  to  the  one  great  source  with  which  the  poet  shows 
the  most  intimate  familiarity,  the  Office  of  the  Church. 

Allen  W.  Porterfield  ^^  has  once  remarked  that  "the  ultimate 
determining  of  sources  is  an  ungrateful  theme,"  because,  in  the 
last  analysis,  it  is  hard  to  say  just  "who  copied  from  whom." 
This  remark  appears  to  strike  home  in  the  case  of  Cynewulf. 
The  fact  that  he  is  removed  by  so  many  centuries  from  our 
day  makes  it  difficult,  indeed,  to  determine  in  each  case  the 
particular  source  which  should  have  influenced  him  in  the  com- 
position of  his  poems.  Wherefore  it  appears  all  the  more  neces- 
sary to  reduce  as  far  as  possible  the  various  influences  surround- 
ing the  poet  to  one  comprehensive  medium,  and  that  medium  is 
the  Divine  Office.  If,  for  instance,  a  thought  is  detected  in  the 
Christ  which  reflects  a  similar  thought  expressed  by  St.  Gregory 
in  his  M  or  alia,  does  that  make  Cynewulf  at  once  familiar  with 
all  the  writings  of  Gregory  or  even  with  the  entire  book  in 
question?     Did  this  thought  perhaps  not  appear  time  and  again 

"  "Graf  von  Loeben  and  the  Legend  of  the  Lorelei,"  in  Modern  Phil- 
ology, xiii,  326,  note  2. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  95 

in  the  readings  of  the  Divine  Office  ?^^  Thus  it  happens  that 
Cynewulf  is  credited  with  an  erudition  which  he  perhaps  never 
acquired  even  in  his  old  age  when  he  found  the  "power  of  song 
released  from  his  breast"  {Blene,  line  1251). 

In  presenting  a  full  and  helpful  edition  of  Cynewulf's  writings, 
it  is  no  doubt  profitable  to  trace  the  thoughts  expressed  by  the 
poet  to  their  ultimate  source,  and  to  illustrate  a  theological  doc- 
trine or  opinion  by  references  from  other  authors.  Still,  it 
would  appear  even  more  helpful  to  a  student,  if  the  proper  dis- 
tinction were  carefully  made  between  mere  references  for  the 
sake  of  enlightenment  and  excerpts  that  are  considered  as  sources 
influencing  the  mind  of  the  poet.  Unfortunately,  the  task  of 
satisfactorily  annotating  the  text  of  the  Christ  seems  to  have 
led  Cook  slightly  astray  in  his  endeavor  to  do  full  justice  to  the 
content  as  well  as  the  religious  spirit  of  the  poem.  For  we  find 
in  his  edition  of  the  Christ  an  accumulation  of  material  which 
cannot  always  serve  as  a  positive  help  to  inquiring  minds.  In 
saying  this  there  is,  of  course,  no  desire  to  underestimate  the 
value  of  the  scholarly  work  embodied  by  Cook  in  his  Notes,  nor 
even  to  hint  at  the  idea  that  such  methods  do  not  serve  a  useful 
purpose  of  dispelHng  the  dense  clouds  of  earlier  misconceptions 
and  consequent  erroneous  deductions  that  have  hitherto  obscured 
the  full  grandeur  and  majesty  of  this  early  luminary  in  the  sky 
of  our  native  religious  poetry. 

Yet,  frankly,  we  cannot  entirely  rid  ourselves  of  the  opinion 
that  such  an  elaborate  apparatus  as  appears  from  the  copiousiiess 
of  the  Notes  in  question  has  the  tendency  to  conceal  some  r'^al 
problems  still  confronting  us,  and  to  blur  the  true  picture  which 
our  mind  should  be  forming  of  the  poet  himself.  It  is  no  v/onder 
that  the  impression  is  gained  that  Cynewulf  was  rather  a  savant 
than  a  humble  and  fervent  poet.  Cook  ^^  ascribes  to  him  a 
"mastery  of  patristic,  hymnic,  and  liturgical  literature,"  and  adds, 
"his  reading  was  so  extensive,  and,  what  is  more  to  the  purpose, 
so  perfectly  assimilated,  that  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should 
have  been  ignorant  of  letters  until  late  in  life."    At  another  place 

"  It  is  quite  common  to  hear  a  modern  preacher  proclaim :  "St.  Bernard 
said  this  and  this  *  *  * ,"  when  we  know  from  personal  acquaintance 
that  the  preacher  in  question  is  by  no  means  a  student  of  the  works  of 
Bernard,  but  has  acquired  his  information  solelv  from  the  reading  of  the 
Office. 

"  P.  Ixxxii. 


96  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

Cook  ^*  says  of  Cynewulf :  "He  was  a  zealous  student  of  the 
Bible ;  of  the  poetry  or  poetical  prose  of  Bede,  Gregory  the  Great, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Prudentius,  Caesarius  of  Aries,  and  Alcuin ; 
of  the  creeds,  the  antiphons,  and  the  hymns  of  the  church.  So 
familiar  does  he  become  with  Latin  that  words  from  that  language 
slip  unobserved,  as  it  were,  into  his  lines." 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  all  the  influences  mentioned  above  are 
detected  in  the  Christ,  but  that  does  not  necessarily  stamp  Cyne- 
wulf as  a  "zealous  student"  of  all  the  sources  employed.  The 
study  of  the  Christ,  indeed,  reveals  the  truth  of  the  poet't  own 
autobiographical  note  in  which  he  says,  ic  *  *  *  zvundrum 
Ices;  ^^  yet  the  field  of  knowledge  from  which  he  gathered  so 
-wondrously  need  not  be  unnecessarily  extended.  From  the  nature 
of  the  sources  in  the  Christ,  this  field  could  even  be  limited  to 
the  information  which  the  poet  gained  in  his  attendance  at  the 
Divine  Office.  If  he  was  a  monk,  an  additional  medium  of  in- 
formation may  have  been  furnished  by  the  readings  conducted  in 
the  monastery. 

But  can  Cynewulf  be  conceived  as  having  embraced  the  mon- 
astic calling?  Cook  says:  '^^  "Whether  or  not  he  became  a  monk 
we  have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  we  do  know  that  the  monastic 
life  was  the  natural  resort  of  the  elect  souls  of  that  age,  and 
that  the  Antiphons  which  he  loved  bear  traces  of  monastic  in- 
fluence." In  the  study  of  the  O-Antiphons  above,  it  was  seen 
that  at  least  three  of  the  Antiphons  which  Cynewulf  paraphrased 
in  Christ  I,  the  O  Hierusalem,  the  O  Rex  Pacifice,  and  the  O 
mundi  Domina,  are  found  only  in  the  monastic  Antiphonary.  It 
appears  that  the  suggestion  of  Cook  is  strong  evidence  of  Cyne- 
wulf's  monastic  life. 

Cynewulf  himself  has  left  us  some  autobiographical  data,  but 
these  have  been  interpreted  in  more  than  one  meaning.  They 
are  contained  in  the  closing  Hnes  of  his  Blene  (lines  1237-1277)," 
and  might  throw  some  light  upon  the  subject  under  discussion. 

Apparently  the  words  of  Cynewulf  in  these  lines  have  created 
the  widespread  impression  of  the  poet's  conversion  from  pagan- 
ism to  Christianity  towards  the  close  of  his  life.     In  the  first 


"  P.  Ixxxix. 

"  Elene,  line  1238. 

*'P.  xcvi. 

"  The  Blene,  C.  W.  Kent.    Boston,  1889.    We  quote  from  this  edition. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  97 

place,  the  poet  nowhere  gives  an  intimation  justifying  such  a 
conclusion.     He  indeed  says: 

*     *     *     ic  waes  weorcum  fah, 

synnum  asseled,  sorgum  gewaeled, 

bitrum  gebunden,  bisgum  be/?rungen, 

aer  me  lare  onlag  purh  leohtne  had 

gamelum  to  geoce     *     *     *  (lines  1243''-1247') 

but  he  nowhere  speaks  of  previous  infidelity.  The  anxieties,  the 
bitterness  and  the  tribulations  which  he  experienced  are  set  down 
as  the  consequences  of  his  misdeeds  and  sins.  Though  the  leoht 
had  could  be  interpreted  as  the  grace  of  holy  baptism  in  which  he 
received  gife  unscyndc  (line  1247),  and  in  which  the  mcegencyning 
bancofan  onband,  breostlocan  onwand,  (line  1250) 

still  he  says  expressly  concerning  the  holy  rood : 

*     *     ♦     Nysse  ic  gearwe 
be  ^aere  (rode)  riht,  aer  me  rumran  ge/?eaht 
purh.  da.  maeran  miht  on  modes  peaht, 
wisdom,  onwrah.  (lines  1240'*-1243') 

This  seems  to  imply  that  the  poet  already  possessed  some  knowl- 
edge of  the  Cross  before  "wisdom  revealed  a  larger  view  into 
the  cogitation  of  my  heart,"  which  would  hardly  have  been  the 
case  had  he  been  reared  in  paganism. 

The  wisdom  of  which  the  poet  speaks  here  seems  to  coincide 
with  the  tare  *  *  ♦  purh  leohtne  had  of  line  1246.  The 
leoht  hdd  itself  might  be  applied  to  the  monastic  profession,  which 
was,  in  its  effect,  considered  a  new  baptism.  That  it  should  bring 
illumination  to  the  mind  and  soul  of  the  newly  professed  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  words  and  ceremonies  of  the  act  of  profession,  as 
carried  out  in  some  Benedictine  monasteries  even  today.  After 
the  vows  have  been  pronounced  by  the  candidate,  he  prostrates 
himself  upon  the  floor  of  the  sanctuary,  is  covered  with  a  pall 
and  surrounded  by  six  lighted  candles,  while  the  choir  chants  the 
Miserere  and  the  bell  is  tolled.  This  ceremony  indicates  the  new 
monk's  death  to  the  secular  life.  His  rising  to  a  new  life  of 
religion  is  then  symbolized  by  the  removing  of  the  tapers  and 
the  pall,  and  by  the  chanting  of  the  words :  Surge  qui  dormis,  et 
exsurge  a  mortuis,  et  illuminabit  te  Christus}^    From  the  death- 

"  For  a  transcript  of  the  ceremonies  accompanying  the  act  of  profession 
I  am  indebted  to  the  members  of  the  novitiate  in  New  Subiaco  Abbey 
(Ark.). 


98  THK  DEPENDENCE  OF   CHRIST  I. 

sleep  of  sin  and  worldly  vanities  the  newly  professed  monk 
awakens  to  a  new  day  of  grace  and  spiritual  life,  and  the  light 
of  that  day  is  Christ.  In  this  new  light  a  new  vista  of  religious 
knowledge  and  experience  opens  before  the  mind  and  soul  of  the 
monk,  and  the  experiences  of  which  Cynewulf  speaks  in  the 
closing  lines  of  the  Blene  might  all  be  referred  to  this  change 
which  came  over  him  after  he  had  embraced  the  monastic  life. 

While  the  words  of  Cynewulf  therefore  cannot  be  safely  in- 
terpreted as  implying  a  conversion  from  paganism  to  Christianity, 
they  seem  to  find  an  application  to  the  conversion  from  the  secu- 
lar to  the  religious  or  monastic  life. 

It  is  well  known  to  students  of  monachism  that  the  entrance 
into  a  monastic  order  is  considered  a  conversion.^^  It  is  a  con- 
version, not  of  faith  or  doctrinal  belief,  but  of  morals,  a  con- 
versio  morum.  When  pronouncing  their  monastic  vows,  the 
Benedictine  monks  explicitly  add  to  the  three  customary  vows 
of  poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience,  a  vow  of  stability  in  the 
order  and  a  vow  of  the  conversion  of  their  morals,  as  prescribed 
by  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedict.  The  holy  founder  of  that  Order 
directs  as  follows :  ^^  Suscipiendus  autem  in  Oratorio  coram 
omnibus  promittat  de  stabilitate  sua,  et  conversione  morum 
suorum,  et  ohedientia,  coram  Deo  et  Sanctis  ejus.^^ 

If  Cynewulf  was  a  monk,  and  many  facts  seem  to  point  to  this 
conclusion,  the  sources  upon  which  he  could  draw  were  not  con- 
fined to  the  chanting  and  reciting  of  the  Divine  Office  with  its 
rich  Biblical,  patristic,  hagiographic  and  liturgical  content,  but 
they  included  also  the  wide  and  extensive  readings  which  were 
conducted  in  the  monastery  outside  the  Divine  Office  itself. 

In  his  Rule,22  St.  Benedict  devotes  much  attention  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  monks.  He  prescribes  it  at  table  and. enjoins  deep 
silence  at  the  meals  in  order  to  stimulate  the  attention  of  the 
hearers.  He  sets  aside  a  certain  portion  of  the  day  for  private 
reading  and  study,  especially  after  the  meals,  after  the  perform- 


"  Of.  Thesaurus  linguae  latinae,  iv.  855  ff, 
^Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  ed.  Hunter-Blair,  cap.  Iviii.  p.  154. 
,    "  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  conversio  morum  see  Matthaus  Rothen- 
hausler,  "Zur  Aufnahmeordnung  der  Regula  S-  Benedicti" ;  and  Ildefons 
Herwegen,   "Geschichte  der  Benediktinischen   Prof essf ormel,"   both   pub- 
lished in  Beitr'dge  zur  Geschichte  des  Alien  Monchtum^s  und  des  Bene- 
diktinerordens,  Miinster,  1912.     Heft  3. 
"  Cf.  chapters  xxxviii,  xlii,  xlviii. 


ON    THE   ANTIPHONARY.  99 

ance  of  the  manual  labors  of  the  day,  and  before  the  Compline 
service.  The  material  of  which  the  reading  is  to  consist  is  not 
specified  minutely,  this  being  largely  dependent  upon  the  books 
and  codices  at  hand,  yet  he  mentions  in  particular  "the  Con- 
ferences (of  Cassian),  the  lives  of  the  Fathers,  or  something  else 
which  may  edify  the  hearers." 

Cynewulf  may  have  been  a  Northumbrian,  he  may  have  been 
a  Mercian ;  it  is  possible  that  he  graced  the  episcopal  throne  of 
Winchester  or  Lindisfarne,  it  is  again  possible  that  he  attached 
his  signature  as  a  simple  priest  to  a  decree  enacted  at  the  Synod 
of  Clovesho  (803)  :  not  one  of  these  suppositions  has  been  estab- 
lished to  the  satisfaction  of  all  inquirers,  and  perhaps  will  never 
be  so  established. 

Yet,  from  the  nature  of  his  works  which  he  has  bequeathed  to 
us,  and  from  the  incidents  which  he  himself  recorded  of  his  life 
and  religious  experience,  the  inference  that  he  was  a  monk  is 
not  to  be  dismissed  as  untenable.  In  striving  to  estimate  as 
nearly  as  possible  in  our  day  the  influences  which  must  have 
borne  upon  Cynewulf,  the  probability  of  his  monastic  profession, 
I  believe,  should  be  given  its  due  share  of  consideration. 

Wherefore,  the  influences  surrounding  our  poet  should  be 
read  from  his  life  and  position  rather  than  read  into  them.  The 
sources  upon  which  Cynewulf  relied  in  the  first  instance  are  those 
with  which  his  daily  life  brought  him  into  the  closest  contact: 
the  Divine  Office  embracing  the  liturgical  content  of  the  Antiphon- 
ary,  of  the  homiliaries  and  lectionaries,  of  the  hymnars  and 
psalters ;  the  readings  of  the  monastery  extending  to  the  lives  of 
the  Saints,  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  also  the  classical 
writers  and  poets.  That  he  must  have  been  a  deep  student  of 
all  or  any  of  these,  is  not  a  necessary  conclusion.  He  himself 
tells  us  that  he  "gathered  wondrously,"  but  the  gathering  was 
done  within  his  own  calling  and  station  in  lif^.  Yet,  what  he 
gathered  was  made  the  object  of  deep  personal  reflection,  and  in 
our  day  constitutes  the  study  and  delight  of  all  lovers  of  Old 
English  Christian  Poetry. 

5.  Conclusion 

The  conclusion  at  which  we  have  arrived  in  the  study  here 
presented  is  that  the  position  taken  by  scholars  in  regard  to  the 
arrangement  of  the  material  in  Christ  I  needs  modification.   Cer- 


100  THE   DEPENDENCE   OF   CHRIST   I. 

tainly,  the  theory  that  Cynewulf  threw  the  twelve  divisions  of 
the  poem  together  at  random  seems  untenable  in  view  of  the 
close  dependence,  which  he  is  seen  to  disclose  in  the  poem,  upon 
the  Antiphonary  in  the  succession  of  his  paraphrases.  Cynewulf 
does  appear  to  have  bestowed  some  attention  upon  the  "archi- 
tectonics," the  "perspective"  of  his  poem,  for  the  sources  upon 
which  he  based  the  various  sections  of  Christ  I  give  to  the  poem 
not  merely  a  lyrical  unity,  or  a  unity  of  mood  secured  through 
the  character  of  the  Advent  season,  but  also  a  unity  of  structure. 

Indeed,  Christ  I  is  not  a  narrative  poem  and  cannot  therefore 
be  expected  to  present  a  well  developed  plot  with  its  beginning, 
middle,  and  end.  It  stands  apart  from  the  usual  literary  compo- 
sition because  of  the  unusual  character  of  its  sources.  But  in 
following  his  sources  the  poet  was  faithful  to  the  outline  or  plan 
which  these  themselves  offered.  If  taken  in  their  actual  Church 
use,  the  sources  of  Christ  I  noti  only  furnish  the  material  for  the 
poetic  version  of  the  Advent  of  Christ,  but  also  give  this  version 
of  the  Advent  theme  a  unity  and  completeness  which  would  seem 
to  destroy  the  charge  that  Cynewulf  was  "a  poet  indeed,  but  a 
poet  untrained  in  composition." 

This  faithful  adherence  to  the  sources  is  not  only  what  we 
would  expect  from  an  Old  English  poet  like  Cynewulf,  but  in 
the  light  of  a  better  understanding  both  of  Christ  I  and  of  its 
sources  in  the  Church  use  of  the  time,  it  seems  a  conclusion  worthy 
of  some  consideration. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  * 

Amalarius,  De  Ordine  Antiphonarii  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol,  105). 
Antiphonaire  Monastique  (XIP  siecle)  :    Codex  601  de  la  Bibliotheque 

Capitulaire  de  Lucques  (et  Codex  48.18  de  la  Cathedrale  de  Tolede), 

in  Paleographie  Musicale,  vol.  ix    Tournai,  1906. 
Antiphonale  Officii  Monastici,  ecrit  par  le  B.  Hartker:     Codex  No. 

390-391  de  la  Bibliotheque  de   Saint-Gall,  in  Paleographie   Musicale, 

ii  series,  vol.  i.    Solesmes,  1900. 
Binterim,    Anton    Joseph,    Die    vorsiiglichsten    Denkwiirdigkeiten    der 

Christ-Katholischen    Kirche    aus    den    ersten,    tnittlem,    und    letzten 

Zeiten.    Mainz,  1829,  vol.  v. 
Blume,  Clemens,  Hymnody  (Catholic  Encyclopaedia,  vii.  595). 
Brandl,  Alois,  Bnglische  Literatur  (in  Paul's  Grundriss,  IV.  1035  ff.). 
Breuiarium  Aberdonense,  ed.  W.  Blew,  The  Maitland  Club   (No.  70), 

London,  1854,  vol.  ii.     (This  is  the  Aberdeen  Breviary  of  1508.) 
Breviarium  ad  Usum  Sarum,  ed.  Proctor  and  Wordsworth,  Cambridge, 

1879-1886. 
Breviarium  Parisiense,  anno  1736.    Paris,  pars  hiemalis. 
Brooke,   Stopford  A.,   The  History   of  Early  English  Literature.     New 

York,  1892. 
Cabrol,  Dom  F.,  "L'Avent  Liturgique,"  ini  Revue  Benedictine,  xxii.  484  ff. 
Cook,  A.  S.,  The  Christ  of  Cynewulf.    Boston,  1900   (second  impression, 

1909). 

"A  Remote  Analogue  to  the  Miracle  Play,"  in  Journal  of  Germanic 

Philology,  iv.  421-451. 

"A    Dramatic   Tendency   in   the    Fathers,"    in   Journal   of   Germanic 

Philology,  v.  62-64. 
Duffield,  S.  W.,  The  Latin  Hymn-Writers  and  their  Hymns,  ed.  Prof. 

R.  E.  Thompson.     New  York,  1889. 
Grancolas,  J.,  Commentarius  Historicus  in  Romanum  Breviarium,  Venice. 

1734. 
Green,  Everard,  "On  the  Words  O  SAPIENTIA  in  the  Kalendar,"  in 

ArchcBologia,  vol.  xlix,  part  i.  219-241. 
Gregory,  St.,  the  Great,  Liher  Responsalis  sive  Antiphonarius   (Migne, 

P.  L.,  vol.  78). 

Liber  Sacramentorum  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  78). 
Gueranger,  D.  Prosper,   The  Liturgical   Year:    Advent.     I^ranslated  by 

Rev.  Dom  Laurence  Shepherd.    Dublin,  1883. 
Hunter-Blair,  D.  Oswald,  The  Rule  of  St.  Benedict.     Fort-Augustus, 

1906. 


*The  Bibliography  is  limited  to  those  works  which  have  been  used  in 
the  preparation  of  this  study. 

101 


102       :  • .  ^   ^'  TECt  'DK^ENDENCE  OF   CHRIST  I. 

Hc;Np}<ius;QJ"AyTUN,  Gtnima  Animae  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  172). 
Joannes  Rothomagensis,  Fragmenta  Quaedam  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  147). 

Ordinarium  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  147). 
Kent,  C.  W.,  Cynewulfs  Blene.     Boston,  1889. 
Leofric  Coi.i,Ectar:    Harl.  MS.  2961,  ed.  by  E.  S.  Dewick.     The  Henry 

Bradshaw  Society  (vol.  45).     London,  1914. 
Martene,  Edmund,  De  Antiquis  Monachorutn  Ritihus.    Lyons,  1706.  lib.  ii. 
Maskeli,,  William,  Monumenta  Ritualia  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae.     London, 

1846.  vol.  ii. 
Maximus,  Hom^lia  II  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  57). 
May,  Alfred  A.,  "A  Source  for  Christ,  11.  348-377,"  in  Modern  Language 

Notes,  xxiv.  158  f. 
MonE,  F.  J.,  Lateinische  Hymen  des  Mittelalters.     Freiburg-i-Br.     1853. 

vol.  i. 
Moore,   Samuel,   "The   Source  of   Christ  416  ff.,"  in  Modern  Language 

Notes,  xxix,  226  f. 
NealE,  J.  M.,  Essays  on  Liturgiology  and  Church  History.    London,  3863. 
Pamelius,    Iacobus,    Liturgica   Latinorum.     Coloniae   Agrippinae.     1571. 

vol.  i. 
Paulus  Diaconus,  Hotniliarius  (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  95). 
Smithson,  George  Arnold,  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic.    University 

of  California  Publications  in  Modern  Philology,  i.  No.  4.     Berkeley, 

1910. 
Tertullian,  Liber  Apologeticus  adversus  Gentes   (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  1). 

Liber  III  adversus  Marcionem   (Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  2). 
Thurston,  Herbert,  "The  Great  Antiphons:    Heralds  of  Christmas,"  in 

The  Month,    London,  vol.  106. 
Tommasi,  Opera  Omnia,  ed.  A.  F.  Vezzosi.    Rome,  1749,  vol.  iv. 
Whitman,  C.  H.,  The  Christ  of  Cynewulf.    A  Translation.    Boston,  1900. 
WuLKER,  Richakd  PauL,  "Dtamatische  Bestrebungen  der  Angelsachsen," 

in  his  Grundriss  zur  Geschichie  der  angelsdchsischen  Literatur.    Leip- 
zig, 1885. 
York  Breviary,  ed.  Lawley.  vol.  ii. 


VITA 

The  writer  of  this  dissertation,  Edward  Burgert,  was  bom  in 
Paris,  Arkansas,  on  October  15,  1887.  He  attended  the  parochial 
school  in  Morrison's  Bluff  and  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  and  subse- 
quently Subiaco  College,  Subiaco,  Arkansas,  where  he  com- 
pleted the  high  school,  college  and  seminary  courses,  and,  in 
1905,  received  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts.  He  entered  the 
Order  of  St.  Benedict  in  the  fall  of  1906,  and  was  ordained  to 
the  priesthood  on  June  24,  1911.  For  seven  years  he  was  in- 
structor in  Subiaco  College.  After  attending,  in  1918,  the  First 
Summer  Session  of  Notre  Dame  University,  Notre  Dame,  Indi- 
ana, he  spent  three  years,  from  1918  to  1921,  in  the  Catholic 
University  of  America,  Washington,  D.  C,  where  he  followed 
courses  in  English  under  Drs.  P.  J.  Lennox  and  F.  J.  Hemelt,  in 
Germanic  Philology  under  Dr.  Paul  Gleis,  in  General  Linguistics 
under  Rev.  James  A.  Geary,  and  in  Mediaeval  Institutions  under 
Dr.  Paschal  Robinson,  O.  F.  M. 


UNIVEESITY  OF  OALIFOB' 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY — ^TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  dae  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

umv  OF 

A/£  i^M  J /C^/}d 

INTER-LlflRAR1C 

LDAN^     . 

JUN  4    1970 

1 

i)ae; 

1 

ONE  MONTH  ARER  RECblPI 

*. 

^^       ■     UCLA 

INTERLIBRARY  LO 

AN 

AUG  2    197'1 

<.f 

DAVIS 
INTEPLia^ARY  L( 

)AN 

DEC  20  197 

6"' 

tfaci^      JAN  18  77 

(N5382sl0)476-A-32                     U*"^^"gJ,£^l^^°'*"= 

VC  lA22i 


CDHbtma?^ 


